* U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the federal agency that “oversees lawful immigration to the United States.[12]

* ICE and USCIS are divisions of the Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the U.S. President.[13][14][15]

* Before 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service carried out the functions of both ICE and USCIS.[16]

Citizens

* Immigrants who have become citizens of the United States are known as “naturalized citizens.”[17][18]

* Per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, some of the benefits of becoming a naturalized citizen include the ability to:

“vote in federal elections.”

“travel with a U.S. Passport.”

“run for elective office where citizenship is required.”

“participate on a jury.”

“become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs.”

“obtain certain state and federal benefits not available to noncitizens.”

“obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad.”

“expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States.”[19]

Legal Non-Citizens

* Non-citizen immigrants who legally live in the U.S. are known as “legal permanent residents” or “lawful permanent residents.” These people are authorized to permanently live, work, and study in the United States.[20][21]

* The federal government issues green-colored identification cards to legal permanent residents, and thus, they are also known as “green card holders.”[22][23]

* At certain points in time, “green cards” have been colors other than green, but the front of the cards issued since 2010 are green:

Illegal Non-Citizens

* Immigrants who illegally live in the U.S. are known as “unauthorized,” “illegal,” or “undocumented” immigrants.[26][27][28][29][30][31]

* Unauthorized immigrants include people who enter the United States through:

illegal means like crossing the border without inspection.

legal means with a tourist, student, or work visa but overstay the timeframe allowed by the visa.[32][33][34]

* Under federal law:

illegally entering the U.S. is generally a criminal offense and also carries civil penalties.[35][36][37]

unlawful presence in the U.S. is generally a civil violation and can result in deportation but not a prison sentence.[38][39][40][41]

Visitors & Temporary Residents

* Foreigners are generally permitted to visit the U.S. if they:

obtain a travel visa, which is “an official document or mark in your passport that allows you to enter or leave a country for a specific purpose or period of time.”

meet certain criteria and are from nations that have visa-free travel agreements with the U.S.[42][43][44]

* Some foreigners can legally reside in the U.S. for extended but temporary periods through mechanisms like student or work visas.[45][46]

* The U.S. government issues many different types of visas, such as those for tourists, athletes, businesspeople, agricultural workers, nannies, journalists, nurses, missionaries, and cultural exchange visitors.[47][48]

Numbers and Demographics

Data Caveats

* The Census Bureau, which is tasked to measure the U.S. population and its demographics, is a core source of data for the numbers and types of immigrants in the U.S.[49][50]

* Census Bureau data on immigration is obtained via surveys, and the answers provided by respondents are “not validated against other sources.”[51][52][53]

* The Census Bureau has difficulty obtaining accurate counts of immigrants. With regard to this, the academic book American Immigration states that:

“many” unauthorized immigrants “speak English poorly and may be illiterate as well, so they have trouble filling out the [Census] forms.”

“illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses.”

Census takers “follow up nonresponses with personal visits,” but “the immigrant population remains hard to find.”

“the Census Bureau has formed partnerships with many organizations and churches in the immigrant community to encourage responses to the census.”

“questions about sensitive matters such as legal status no longer appear on the Census form.”

“no one directly measures who leaves the country [United States].”[54][55][56]

* Per the Congressional Budget Office, estimates for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. “are subject to considerable uncertainty.”[57] This is because:

millions of immigrants use fraudulent Social Security numbers, fake birth certificates, or other forms of identity fraud to conceal that they are in the U.S. illegally.[58][59]

surveys generally require random, unbiased samples in order to be accurate,[60][61] and some immigrants, especially unauthorized ones, avoid surveys out of fear of exposing their immigration status.[62][63]

surveys are dependent upon respondent honesty, and certain groups of non-citizens often misrepresent themselves as citizens on surveys.[64]

All Immigrants

* According to the Census Bureau:

43.1 million immigrants were living in the U.S. as of 2016.[65][66][67]

From 1890 to 1919, “Germany dominated as the country sending the most immigrants to many of the U.S. states, although the United Kingdom, Canada and Italy were also strongly represented.”

“Since 1965, when Congress passed legislation to open the nation’s borders, immigrants have largely hailed from Latin America and Asia.”

“Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 1965, making the nation the top destination in the world for those moving from one country to another.”

“Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”[72]

* In a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanics living in the U.S. during 2013, 59% said they were not born in the United States or Puerto Rico.[73]

* Per the academic encyclopedia Immigration in America Today, “the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America” from “almost entirely working-class” to a mixture of “highly educated and trained workers” and “a large group” of “low-skilled and under-educated immigrants” that “rose in numbers and in percentages in the 1980s and 1990s.”[74]

* In 2013, 55% of Asian immigrants aged 25–64 had a bachelor’s degree or higher, as compared to 33% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

* In 2013, 54% of Mexico and Central American immigrants aged 25–64 did not have a high school diploma or GED, as compared to 7% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

Foreign-born people represent a substantial fraction of the population in some states. In 2012, about 1 in 4 people in California and about 1 in 5 people in New York and in New Jersey were born in another country. However, in another 31 states, taken together, only about 1 person in 20 was foreign born.[77]

* Per various academic texts that address the geographic locations of immigrants in the United States:

[N]ew immigrants and ethnic groups have become segregated across neighborhoods or between central cities and suburbs. Recent trends see the emergence of entire metropolitan areas or labor market regions that are distinct from the rest of the country in their race, ethnic, and demographic composition.[78]

In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer.[79]

The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms….[80]

Citizens

* According to Census data, 20.7 million immigrants who were U.S. citizens lived in the United States during 2015. This equates to 6.4% of the U.S. population.[81]

* Between 1907 and 2015, the U.S. awarded citizenship to 28.2 million people, the median being 162,000 per year and the average 259,000 per year:

* Based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, in 2011, more immigrants from Latin America were U.S. citizens than from any other area of the world. The specific numbers from all areas were as follows:

* In 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that 65% of all Hispanics and Asians aged 18 and older in the U.S. labor force were U.S. citizens.[84]

* In a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanics living in the U.S. during 2013, 67% said they were U.S. citizens.[85]

Non-Citizens

* Non-citizen immigrants living in the U.S. are comprised of both legal and illegal immigrants.[86]

* According to Census data, 22.6 million immigrants who were not U.S. citizens lived in the United States during 2015. This equates to 7.0% of the U.S. population.[87]

* Based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, in 2011, more immigrants from Latin America were not U.S. citizens than from any other area of the world. The specific numbers from all areas were as follows:

* In 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that 35% of all Hispanics and Asians aged 18 and older in the U.S. labor force were not U.S. citizens.[89]

* In a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanics living in the U.S. during 2013, 33% said they were not U.S. citizens.[90]

Legal Non-Citizens

* According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 13.1 million lawful permanent residents were living in the U.S. as of January 2013.[91] This equates to 4.2% of the U.S. population.[92] Among these lawful permanent residents:

* Per the academic book American Immigration, unauthorized immigrants “tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York….”[113]

* Based upon population estimates from the United Nations, the International Organization for Migration, and Pew Research, 4% of the world’s population and 36% to 55% of the world’s illegal immigrants live in the United States.[114][115]

Nonimmigrant Admissions

* During 2015, the U.S. granted more than 181 million admissions to 104 million nonimmigrant visitors.[116] These 104 million visitors equate to 33% of the U.S. population.[117]

* Based on estimates by the Department of Homeland Security:

an average of 1.7 million nonimmigrants lived in the U.S. during 2014.

Drivers

Poll Data

* In 2014, NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health commissioned a nationally representative poll of 1,478 Latinos in the U.S., 58% of which were immigrants. The following portions of these immigrants said that they came to the U.S. for these major reasons:

* Mexico, which shares a 2,000 mile border with the U.S., is the largest single source of immigration to the United States.[122][123] In 2009, Pew Research conducted a nationally representative poll of 1,000 adults in Mexico. It found that:

17% of Mexicans considered crime to be a “moderately big problem,” and 81% considered it to be a “very big problem.”

26% of Mexicans considered “corrupt political leaders” to be a “moderately big problem,” and 68% considered them to be a “very big problem.”

51% of Mexicans had in the past year done a favor, given a gift, or paid a bribe to a “government official in order to get services or a document that the government is supposed to provide.”

33% of Mexicans said they would “go to live in the United States” at “this moment” if they “had the means and opportunity.”

among the 33% of Mexicans who said they would move to the U.S. immediately if they could, 55% said they would do so “without authorization.”[124]

International

NOTE: The following graphs show correlations between migration and factors that may spur people to migrate, but it is important to realize that correlation does not prove causation.[125][126][127] However, the graphs are consistent with what immigrants have told pollsters about their motives for migrating.

* Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is defined as the value of all market and some nonmarket goods and services produced within a country’s geographic borders.

GDP per capita [person], when converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities, is the most widely used income measure for international comparisons of living standards.[128]

* Per the textbook Microeconomics for Today (and other academic sources):

GDP per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.[129][130][131]

* Based on data from more than 175 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with lower GDPs per person to those with higher GDPs per person:

* Based on data from more than 150 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with worse public-sector corruption to those with less public-sector corruption and “higher degrees of press freedom, access to information about public expenditure, stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems”:

United States

NOTE: The following graphs show correlations between migration and factors that may spur people to migrate, but it is important to realize that correlation does not prove causation.[143][144][145] However, the graphs are consistent with what immigrants have told pollsters about their motives for migrating.

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following GDPs per person relative to the United States:

Illegally to the United States

NOTE: The following graphs show correlations between migration and factors that may spur people to migrate, but it is important to realize that correlation does not prove causation.[162][163][164] However, the graphs are consistent with what immigrants have told pollsters about their motives for migrating.

* The top 4 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following GDPs per person relative to the United States:

* Since 1986, U.S. law has required most hospitals with emergency departments to provide an “examination” and “stabilizing treatment” for anyone who comes to such a facility and requests care for an emergency medical condition or childbirth, regardless of their ability to pay and immigration status.[179][180][181][182]

* The top 4 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of health spending relative to the United States:

Legal Entry and Residency

History

* Before the late 1800s, immigration to the United States was largely unregulated.[185]

* In the late 1800s, Congress enacted laws to prohibit the entry of:

criminals.

people with infectious diseases.

any “person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”

most people from China, based on claims that they drove down wages and caused cultural and moral harm to society.[186][187][188][189]

* In 1917, Congress passed legislation that:

required all immigrants over the age of 16 to show that they were able to read in a language of each immigrant’s choice.

gave immigration officials more discretion to decide if people should be admitted.

banned from entry all people from Asia except for Japan and the Philippines.[190]

* In the 1920s, Congress enacted numerical restrictions on immigration from each foreign nation. These laws:

created immigration quotas based on the number of people from each country who were already in the United States.

did not apply to spouses and children of U.S. citizens.

banned from entry all people from Asia except for the Philippines.[191][192][193]

* In 1940, near the outset of World War II, the U.S. government took measures to prevent wartime enemies from sabotaging the U.S. by enacting a law that required

immigrants to be fingerprinted, registered, and removed if they were illegally present.[194]

* In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress repealed the laws that barred Asians from immigrating to the United States. Quotas still limited immigration from Asia to a greater degree than from Western countries.[195][196][197]

* In 1965, Congress passed a law that:

repealed immigration quotas based on the number of people from each country who were already in the United States.

created uniform quotas for immigration from each nation.

created preferences for family members, refugees, and employees deemed by the federal government to be in high demand.[198][199]

* In 1976 and 1978, Congress modified U.S. immigration quotas to limit:

* In 1986, Congress passed a comprehensive immigration reform as a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[201][202][203] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[204][205] This legislation:

legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[206][207][208]

required these immigrants “to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government” in order to become legal permanent residents.[209][210]

prohibited “newly legalized” immigrants “from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans and Haitians were exempted.”[211]

legalized most “seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986.”[212]

made it illegal to discriminate in employment because of a person’s national origin or immigration status, as long as they were legally authorized to work in the U.S.[213][214]

“imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens” in order to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[217][218][219]

required new employees to fill out a form and present documents to their employers that show they are U.S. citizens or are otherwise authorized to work in the United States.[220][221][222]

required employers to review the documents presented by employees and certify “that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them.”[223]

* In 1990, Congress enacted a law to increase the number of immigrants admitted to the United States and make other changes to the immigration system.[225] The bill passed with 72% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans voting for it.[226] Republican President George H. Bush signed it into law.[227] This legislation:

increased the annual immigration limit from 290,000 people to 675,000 people, plus another 125,000 for refugees.

“established the Diversity Visa Program, making immigrant visas available to randomly selected foreign nationals coming from countries with historically low rates of immigration.”

narrowed the list of medical issues that prohibit people from gaining entry to the U.S.[228][229][230]

* In 2010, the Obama administration issued a regulation declaring that HIV was not a “communicable disease of public health significance.” This decision allowed immigrants with HIV to enter the United States and become legal permanent residents.[231][232][233]

Current Requirements

* Under federal law, there are more than 40 pathways for immigrants to become a legal permanent resident of the United States.[234] Some of these paths have no numerical limits, and some are based on being:

a religious worker or someone who falls into numerous other specialized categories.[249][250]

a foreign resident who enlisted in the U.S. military under special circumstances.[251]

* When the demand to become a legal permanent resident under certain pathways exceeds the yearly limits allowed by law, the federal government places people on waiting lists. The rules of these waiting lists are outlined in this footnote.[252]

* Federal law generally requires immigrants to pass a criminal background check before becoming legal permanent residents of the United States.[253]

* Under federal law, certain people who are currently residing in the U.S. are generally not eligible to become legal permanent residents, although there are exceptions to these rules.[254][255] Some of the ineligible people include those who:

* Under federal law, certain people are not allowed to reside in the U.S. or become legal permanent residents, although there are exceptions to these rules.[262] Some of the ineligible people include those who:

have engaged in “fraud or willful misrepresentation” to obtain benefits under U.S. immigration law.[263][264][265]

are “likely at any time to become a public charge,” or burden to taxpayers.[270][271]

* Under a regulation proposed by the Clinton administration in 1999,[272] the federal government currently interprets the “public charge” law in the following manner:

Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination.[273][274]

* Under the interpretation above, the federal government does not consider the following welfare benefits when determining if people are likely to become public charges:

Medicaid and other healthcare (except for long-term institutional care).

Nutrition programs like Food Stamps, School Lunch, and School Breakfast.

* In 1868, shortly after the U.S. Civil War ended and slavery was abolished,[284][285] the federal government ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[286]

* In 1870, Congress passed a law that allowed people who were born in Africa to become U.S. citizens.[287]

* In 1882, Congress passed a law that barred the Chinese from becoming U.S. citizens, based on claims that they drove down wages and caused cultural and moral harm to society.[288][289][290]

* Before 1906, “any court of record” could award U.S. citizenship, and the federal government gave the courts limited guidance on this process. In 1906, Congress created the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and placed it in “charge of all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens.” The purpose of this was to create uniform national standards for immigration and citizenship.[291]

* In 1940, Congress passed a law requiring that immigrants pass a test showing they can read and write in English in order to become U.S. citizens.[292]

* In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress repealed laws that barred the Chinese and other Asians from becoming U.S. citizens.[293][294]

* In 1986, Congress passed a comprehensive immigration reform as a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[295][296][297] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[298][299] This legislation:

legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[300][301][302]

“imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens” in order to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[303][304][305]

pass an interview process in which they are placed under oath and questioned about their qualifications for citizenship.[320][321]

have good moral character, which generally excludes people who have engaged in polygamy, adultery, failure to support their children, failure to pay taxes, habitual drunkenness, or illegal drug usage.[322][323][324][325][326][327]

are eligible for all state and federal welfare benefits, such as food stamps, housing, home energy, child care, and health insurance. These benefits are generally awarded based on the reported incomes of their households or families.[346][347][348][349][350][351][352][353]

can sometimes serve as shields to prevent their parents from being deported.[354][355][356]

can sponsor their relatives to become legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.[357][358][359]

* The birthright citizenship clause was added to the 14th Amendment by a vote of the U.S. Senate on May 30, 1866.[360] Jacob Howard, a Republican senator from Michigan who introduced the 14th Amendment,[361][362] proposed the birthright citizenship clause by stating:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.[363]

* The senators then discussed the meaning of the proposed language for the 14th Amendment and voiced conflicting views about it.[364] With regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” Howard stated that:

the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.[365]

* In 2009, Pew Research estimated that 73% of the children of unauthorized immigrants were U.S. citizens.[368]

Illegal Entry and Residency

Current Law

* Federal law generally prohibits employers from hiring unauthorized immigrants, and it imposes civil and criminal penalties (including jail time) on employers who knowingly do so.[369][370][371][372]

* Under federal law:

unlawfully entering the U.S. is generally a criminal offense and also carries civil penalties.[373][374][375]

unlawful presence in the U.S. is generally a civil violation and can result in deportation but not a prison sentence or criminal conviction.[376][377][378][379] Other examples of federal civil violations include:

creating a disturbance by spreading a non-toxic powder in a federal building.[381]

* Except under special circumstances, immigrants who are illegally present in the U.S. can be deported under federal law.[382][383][384][385]

* Except in cases like child abuse and custody battles, deported immigrants are free to bring any children born to them in the U.S. back with them to their country of origin.[386]

* Federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General to begin removal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible” when a non-citizen is convicted of a “deportable” offense.[387] Such offenses include but are not limited to:

a “crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.”

“an aggravated felony.”

possessing a firearm.

drug crimes “other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana.”

domestic violence.

stalking.

identity fraud.

falsely claiming to be a citizen to get a job or receive welfare benefits.

under hazardous conditions and without any recourse to labor laws.[396][397][398]

“under the table” or “off the books,” which enables employers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, and workers’ compensation insurance premiums.[399][400][401][402][403]

* In 1986, Congress passed a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations that granted legal residency to millions of illegal immigrants.[404][405][406][407] As part of the exchange for this amnesty, the law:

required new employees to fill out an “I-9” employment eligibility verification form and present documents to their employers that show they are U.S. citizens or are otherwise authorized to work in the United States.[408][409][410][411]

required employers to review the documents presented by employees and certify “that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them.”[412]

* In the signing ceremony for the 1986 amnesty, President Reagan stated that the law’s punishment of employers who hire illegal immigrants is it’s “keystone and major element,” because this “will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[416]

* Per the 2006 academic encyclopedia Immigration in America Today, employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants “are seldom punished,” because the U.S. “lacks a viable system to verify the eligibility of new workers.”[417]

* In 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that E-Verify had a challenge with misidentifying people who were authorized to work. In June 2004 through March 2007, 8% of the people who were initially determined by E-Verify and its predecessor to be unauthorized to work in the U.S. were later found to be authorized.[420]

* By 2015, 0.17% of the people who were initially determined by E-Verify to be unauthorized to work in the U.S. were later found to be authorized.[421]

* In 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that E-Verify was unable to detect certain forms of identity fraud.[422]

* In 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a security enhancement to E-Verify to “help combat identity fraud by identifying and deterring fraudulent use of Social Security numbers (SSNs) for employment eligibility verification.”[423]

* In 2017, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, introduced a bill to:

permanently implement the E-Verify program.

change E-Verify from a largely voluntary program to a mandatory one for all employers.

Overstays

* Foreigners are generally permitted to visit the U.S. if they obtain a travel visa or meet certain criteria and are from nations that have visa-free travel agreements with the U.S.[425][426][427] Some foreigners can also legally reside in the U.S. for extended periods through mechanisms like student or work visas.[428][429]

* “Overstays” are foreigners who are legally admitted to the United States for a temporary period but don’t leave by their lawfully required time.[430]

* About 50 million foreigners who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. through air and sea ports of entry were legally required to leave during 2016. Among these people, 544,676 were still in the U.S. more than three months past the end of the year.[431]

* The figures above do not include foreigners who were legally admitted through land ports of entry, including those who arrived via cars, trains, buses, ferries, bicycles, trucks, and foot. The Department of Homeland Security is currently unable to determine how many of these people overstay their legal limits.[432]

* About 45 million foreigners who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. for business or pleasure through air and sea ports of entry were legally required to leave during 2015. Among these people, 355,338 were still in the U.S. nine months past the end of the year.[433]

Border Crossings

* The border between Mexico and the United States is about 2,000 miles long.[434][435]

* During 2013 to 2015, the U.S. Border Patrol recorded an average of about 700,000 illegal entries into the U.S. per year along the Mexican border. This includes people who were apprehended after crossing the border, turned back to Mexico on their own, or reached the interior of United States. It does not include “illegal entrants for which Border Patrol does not have reasonable indications of cross-border illegal activity.”[436]

* During 1998 to 2016, 6,915 people died while illegally crossing the U.S./Mexico border, or an average of 364 people per year.[437]

* In 2016, 12% of people apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol were caught crossing the border at least two times that year.[438]

* During 2007 to 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection spent about $300 million per year on tactical infrastructure (fencing, gates, roads, bridges, lighting, and drainage) to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants, terrorists, drugs, and other contraband across the U.S./Mexico border.[439] This amounted to less than 0.01% of federal government spending during these years.[440]

* As of 2016, the U.S. had in place 654 miles of fencing along the U.S./Mexico border.[441] This fencing consists of various designs meant to stop or slow down pedestrians or vehicles from illegally entering the United States.[442]

* As of 2015, pedestrian fences cover 354 miles or 18% of the U.S./Mexico border.[443] These fences are designed to:

divert illegal border crossers from urban areas (where they can easily escape by blending into the numerous people and buildings) to rural areas (where Border Patrol can more easily apprehend them).

delay illegal border crossers so that Border Patrol has more time to apprehend them.[444]

* As of 2015, vehicle fences cover 300 miles or 15% of the U.S./Mexico border.[445] These fences:

are typically deployed in rural areas and are designed to stop and delay people who use motorized vehicles for drug trafficking and human smuggling.

* As of February 2017, some of the U.S./Mexico border fencing was in disrepair and being replaced. For example, about a quarter mile from the U.S. city of Sunland Park, New Mexico, debris that had collected on the Mexico side of the fence made the fence effectively two feet high. In the same area, a falling fence was held up with cables:

* Between 2010 and 2015, illegal border crossers created an average of 1,548 holes per year in pedestrian border fencing along the Mexican border. U.S. Border Patrol repaired all of these holes at an average cost of $784 per breach.[461]

* Between 2010 and 2015, older fence designs were breached at a rate of 82 per mile, while newer designs were breached at a rate of 14 per mile.[462]

* Beyond fencing, other factors that impact the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol to prevent illegal border crossings include “terrain, geography, demographics, Border Patrol agent manpower, and surveillance technology.”[464]

Apprehensions, Returns, and Removals

* Between 1925 and 2015, U.S. immigration officials apprehended 56 million immigrants suspected of being illegally present in the United States. The median over this period was 509,000 per year, and the average was 614,000 per year:

Illicit Drugs

* In 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seized about 2.1 million pounds of narcotics at the Mexican border. This was 64% of all narcotics seized by the Department of Homeland Security that year.[471][472]

the number of heroin deaths is undercounted by as much as 30 percent. This is due both to variations in state reporting procedures, and because heroin metabolizes into morphine very quickly in the body, making it difficult to determine the presence of heroin.[479]

1940s and 1950s Enforcement

* During the presidencies of Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Dwight Eisenhower,[480] the federal government increased the number of illegal immigrants that it returned and removed to their home countries from 41,000 in 1944 to 1.1 million in 1954:

* The immigration enforcement efforts of the 1950s culminated in “Operation Wetback.” This was an initiative to remove Mexican immigrants who had illegally entered the U.S. in large numbers after the U.S. enacted a policy to allow many Mexican citizens to temporarily work in the United States.[482][483][484]

1986 Amnesty

* In 1986, Congress passed a comprehensive immigration reform as a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[485][486][487] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[488][489] This legislation:

legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[490][491][492]

required these immigrants “to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government” in order to become legal permanent residents.[493][494]

prohibited “newly legalized” immigrants “from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans and Haitians were exempted.”[495]

legalized most “seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986.”[496]

made it illegal to discriminate in employment because of a person’s national origin or immigration status, as long as they were legally authorized to work in the U.S.[497][498]

“imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens” in order to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[500][501][502]

required new employees to fill out a form and present documents to their employers that show they are U.S. citizens or are otherwise authorized to work in the United States.[503][504][505]

required employers to review the documents presented by employees and certify “that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them.”[506]

* The immigrants who were granted amnesty under the 1986 law were eligible to become U.S. citizens after five years of lawful permanent residency.[513][514] This created a surge of citizenship applications beginning in 1993 during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. In 1995, the Clinton administration launched an initiative called “Citizenship USA” to speed the processing of these applications.[515][516][517] In 2000, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice published an investigation of this program that found:

the amnesty and citizenship applications for agricultural workers were “rife with fraud” and allowed ineligible immigrants to obtain amnesty and citizenship.[518]

the Clinton administration Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] was aware of this fraud “at the highest level” and promised to address it, but:

“evidence of fraud was not adequately explored and, in some instances, was completely disregarded.”

“many” INS employees “believed that they were prohibited from reviewing documents in an applicant’s file” that would reveal such fraud and “could not consider it in the determination of citizenship.”[519]

the INS did not perform “a complete criminal history background check” for 18% of the people who were granted citizenship.[520]

the INS “did not properly enforce the English-language requirement” for U.S. citizenship.[521]

the INS gave “superficially trained, inexperienced” employees five minutes to conduct citizenship interviews. During these interviews, the employees had to determine if applicants had good moral character, had accurately answered all of the questions on their applications, and met other legal qualifications for citizenship.[522]

* In the signing ceremony for the 1986 amnesty, President Reagan stated that the law would “humanely regain control of our borders.”[523]

* In the years surrounding the 1986 amnesty, the following sources estimated the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. to be:

forcing “courts, social service agencies, and all government agencies dealing with the public” to “provide trained and certified translators.”[540]

Barack Obama

* The U.S. Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to ensure that federal laws are “faithfully executed” and to select people who will carry out this work.[541][542]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the President.[543][544]

* In 2012, President Obama announced that he would not deport illegal immigrants for two years and would allow them to legally work in the U.S. if they:

were currently under the age of 31,

arrived in the U.S. before 2007,

were under the age of 16 when they arrived,

applied to this program and passed a criminal background check.[545][546][547]

* This directive, called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” was applicable to 1.2 million people. At least 636,000 illegal immigrants applied for and were approved for it.[548]

* In 2014, the Obama administration expanded this directive to:

remove the age limit of 31 years old.

extend the latest arrival date from 2007 to 2010.

allow immigrants to renew (in 3-year increments) their relief from deportation and ability to work.[549]

* A federal law to combat human trafficking forbids the U.S. government from immediately returning “unaccompanied alien children” to nations that don’t directly border the United States. This law requires that when immigrants “apprehended at the border” are under the age of 18 and from anywhere but Mexico or Canada, they must be:

“promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child,”

the Obama administration had placed 85% of these children—who were mostly male and over the age of 14—with their relatives in the United States.[554]

87% of people admitted to the U.S. under this policy over the past five years had not been ordered to leave the United States.[555]

* Between 2012 and 2014, the number of unaccompanied children from Central America illegally crossing the U.S. border increased by roughly 10 times.[556][557] This overwhelmed the ability of U.S. officials to care for the children and created what the White House called an “urgent humanitarian situation.”[558][559][560]

* NBC News, CNN, the Washington Post, and the Center for American Progress published articles that blamed this surge of illegal immigration on violence and poverty in the children’s homelands.[561][562][563][564]

* In 2014, Breitbart News obtained a leaked report from a federal center that provides “tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence support” to government law enforcement agencies.[565] This report examined “the probable drivers” of the “recent surge of Central American children to the U.S. Southwest border” and found:

In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC and adult female OTMs [other than Mexicans] traveling with minors.

“Permisos” are the Notice to Appear documents issued to undocumented aliens, when they are released on their own recognizance, pending a hearing before a U.S. immigration judge.

Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging—prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also notes that a large number of migrants interviewed claimed family members in the United States encouraged their travel because the U.S. government would cease issuing permisos after June 2014. Migrants cited Univision, Primer Impacto, Al Rojo Vivo and several Honduran television news outlets for helping shape their perception of U.S. immigration policy.

Homicide trends and migrant interviews suggest violence is likely not the principal factor driving the increase in UAC migration.[566][567]

* In the three nations that were the primary sources of these unaccompanied child immigrants (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador[568]), the murder rates were lower during all years of the 2012–2014 border surge than the year beforehand:

* During Obama’s presidency, Democratic politicians and Latino activists called on him to shield more illegal immigrants from deportation. Obama publicly replied:

“The problem is, is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

“If we start broadening that, then essentially I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.”[570]

* In June of 2014, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a vocal supporter of amnesty for unauthorized immigrants, declared there was no possibility that Congress would pass an amnesty during Obama’s presidency. He then called on Obama to act on his own.[571]

* In November of 2014, the Obama administration announced that it would not deport illegal immigrants for three years and would allow them to legally work in the U.S. if they:

were in the U.S. since January 1, 2010,

had a child who was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,

were “not an enforcement priority,” and

applied to this program and were not “threats to national security, border security, and public safety.”[572][573]

* This directive, called “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans”:

was applicable to roughly four-to-five million unauthorized immigrants.[574][575][576]

required federal agencies to issue them work authorizations and Social Security numbers.[577]

required Texas and possibly other states to issue them drivers licenses.[578]

required government agencies to make them eligible for an array of benefit programs.[579][580]

* After Obama announced this directive, 26 states sued the federal government to stop it from taking effect. In February of 2015, a federal judge agreed with the states and issued a temporary order to halt it.[581][582]

* In November of 2015, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court agreed with the federal judge and ruled (2–1) that Obama’s directive was “beyond the scope” of what federal law “can reasonably be interpreted to authorize.[583][584]

* In June of 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked on taking up this case, which left the appeals court ruling in place.[585]

* On the same day that Obama announced his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans,[586] his Secretary of Homeland Security instructed all federal immigration and border security personnel to:

never pursue the “removal of an alien not identified as a priority” unless an ICE Field Office Director concludes that “removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.”

apply “prosecutorial discretion” as to “whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal.”[587]

* The policies above:

were summarized by the Obama administration as “more refined civil immigration enforcement priorities” that “placed increased emphasis and focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats over non-criminals.”[588]

became effective on January 5, 2015 with “training and guidance … provided to the workforce prior to the effective date.”[589]

* In the federal government’s 2015 and 2016 fiscal years (October 2014 through September 2016[590]), ICE removed 21% fewer convicted criminals per year than in its 2014 fiscal year:

* In 2014, the Obama administration “released from its custody 30,558 criminal aliens with a total of 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them.”[592]

* Between October 1, 2010 and July 21, 2015, the Obama administration released 124 criminal aliens who were later charged with murder-related crimes committed in the U.S. after their release and before February 2016.[593][594][595]

* For additional facts and context about Obama’s actions on immigration and crime, see the crime and politics section of this research.

“deported a record 1.5 million” illegal immigrants during “his first term.”– NPR, 2012[596]

deported “more people than any other president in U.S. history.”– WNYC New York Public Radio, 2017[597]

“has carried out many more deportations than previous presidents, setting a record of more than 2.4 million formal removals.”– New York Times, 2016[598]

“has deported more people than any other president’s administration in history. In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century. … and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available. “– ABC News, 2016[599]

* During a 2011 meeting with Hispanic media outlets, a reporter from AOL Latino asked Obama why he has “been deporting much more immigrants than the previous administration did in eight years.” Obama replied that:

the statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we’ve been doing is with the stronger border enforcement we’ve been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back—that’s counted as a deportation.[600][601]

* Previously, the federal government did not count people apprehended at the border as “deportations.” During the presidency of George W. Bush, ICE began issuing orders of “removal” (commonly called “deportation”) when it caught immigrants near the Mexican border. Before this, ICE returned these people to Mexico without issuing an order of removal. This procedural change altered the classification of these immigrants from “returns” to “removals.”[602][603]

* The federal government expels illegal immigrants through returns and removals.[604][605][606] Under the Obama administration, returns and removals of illegal immigrants declined from 1.2 million in 2008 to 460,000 in 2015:

1965–69 earned an average of 24% less than native-born workers of the same age. Ten years later, they were earning 12% less. Twenty years later, they were earning 2% less. Forty years later, they were earning 18% more.

1985-89 earned an average of 33% less than native-born workers of the same age. Ten years later, they were earning 27% less. Twenty years later, they were earning 25% less.

1995–99 earned an average of 27% less than native-born workers of the same age. Ten years later, they were earning 27% less.[615]

* One of the primary factors associated with immigration-related income disparities is education.[617]

* Per the academic encyclopedia Immigration in America Today:

The liberalization of immigration policy following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America. … Whereas immigrants before the Great Depression were almost entirely working-class, all the immigrants of the 1970s through the 1990s can be divided into two economic classes, either highly skilled or poorly skilled.[618][619]

* In 2013, 54% of Mexico and Central American immigrants aged 25–64 did not have a high school diploma or GED, as compared to 7% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

* One of the primary factors associated with immigration-related income disparities is the ability to speak English proficiently.[622]

* A 2014 study by the Brookings Institution found that:

workers with limited English proficiency “earn 25 to 40 percent less than their English proficient counterparts.”

“high-skilled immigrants who are not proficient in English are twice as likely to work in ‘unskilled’ jobs (i.e. those requiring low levels of education or training) as those who are proficient in English.”[623]

* In 2015, 9% of people living in the U.S. did not speak English “very well.” This varied by immigration status as follows:

Price Effects

* Increased numbers of workers vying for the same jobs creates increased competition, which generally leads to lower consumer prices.[626][627][628]

* In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences published a 495-page analysis of the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. With regard to the effect of immigration on the prices of goods and services, the report states:

Increases in the share of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force appear to have reduced, over time, the prices of immigrant-intensive services such as child care, eating out, house cleaning and repair, landscaping and gardening, taxi rides, and construction.

[H]igh-income households … are more likely than low-income households to consume products such as child care, landscaping, and restaurant meals that are immigrant-intensive in production.

The decrease in prices is found to be driven by lower wages paid by those hiring in labor markets populated by low-skilled workers of Hispanic origin, particularly those with relatively low English proficiency and/or who are not legally authorized to work….

Housing is a specific sector in which immigrants play an important role. On the supply side, immigrants are disproportionately represented in construction…. Their addition to the labor force may reduce the cost of construction and maintenance services. However, new arrivals also provide a major source of housing demand and, by raising both prices and rents, generate a potential windfall for native owners of housing.

[I]mmigration, like any increase in the population, has the potential to drive up an area’s house prices…. This is beneficial for homeowners and those who derive income from renting out accommodations. For natives who do not already own homes, whether they plan to continue renting or aspire to eventually purchase a home, this represents an increase in the cost of living. [629]

Wage Effects

* Increased numbers of workers vying for the same jobs creates increased competition, which generally leads to lower wages for those jobs.[630][631]

* Between 1970 and 2016, the portion of workers in the U.S. aged 25 and older who were immigrants increased from:

* All studies that have attempted to quantify the wage effects of immigration employ assumptions, and they have produced conflicting and uncertain results.[634]

* In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences published a 495-page analysis of the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. This report summarizes 22 results from studies that estimate the effects of immigration on the wages of U.S.-born workers. The studies use differing methods and examine varying groups of workers but mainly those with low incomes. Among these 22 results:

18 indicate that immigration has reduced the wages of some U.S.-born workers.

4 indicate that immigration has increased the wages of some U.S.-born workers.

the average result is that each 1% increase in the number of workers in a labor market caused by immigration decreased the wages of U.S.-born workers in that market by 0.5%. The median result is a decrease of 0.4%.[635]

* The National Academies of Sciences summarized the studies above by stating that:

the wages of U.S. high school “dropouts tend to be more negatively affected” by immigration “than better-educated” Americans.

this “negative effect” on the wages of U.S.-born workers “may be compounded for native minorities.”

one of the “largest negative effects” among these studies is on “Hispanic dropouts with poor English….”[636]

* Per the same National Academies of Sciences report:

Finally, immigrants influence the rate of innovation in the economy, which potentially affects long run economic growth. While research in this area is very recent, literature on the topic as a whole indicates that immigrants are more innovative than natives; more specifically, high-skilled immigrants raise patenting per capita, which is likely to boost productivity and per capita economic growth. Immigrants appear to innovate more than natives not because of greater inherent ability but due to their concentration in science and engineering fields.[637]

Immigration confers economic benefits on the native-born population as a whole but, among the native-born, there are likely to be winners and losers. While pre-existing workers most similar to immigrants may experience lower wages or a lower employment rate, preexisting workers who are complementary to immigrants are likely to benefit, as are native-born owners of capital.[638]

Taxes

* Relative to U.S.-born citizens, the average cash income of families of:

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2010, 3.9 million illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy.”[642] This allows workers and employers to avoid paying income taxes and social insurance taxes.[643][644][645][646][647]

IRS data show that when taxpayers have a choice about reporting their income, voluntary tax compliance rates are disturbingly low.[648][649]

* In 2010, 3.0 million illegal immigrants and foreign investors filed federal tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). The IRS issues these numbers to people regardless of their immigration status, and it enables them to file federal tax returns without a Social Security number.[650][651] Among the people who filed such returns in 2010:

72% paid no income tax and received cash payments from the federal government for child tax credits (foreign investors cannot receive these payments). In comparison, 14% of people who filed regular tax returns (with a Social Security number) paid no income tax and received these payments.[652][653]

the entire group paid a total of $0.9 billion in income taxes and received total cash payments of $4.9 billion.[654]

* For facts about how politicians, media outlets, and “fact-checkers” have misled the public about income taxes paid by illegal immigrants, see Just Facts’ article about this issue.

* In 2010, illegal immigrants using fraudulent/expired Social Security numbers paid about $13 billion in Social Security taxes and received about $1 billion in Social Security benefits.[655] This disparity between taxes and benefits is because:

federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits, although some receive them through fraud.[656]

before reaching the age of 62, workers are not eligible to receive Social Security old-age benefits, and 96% of illegal immigrants were under the age of 55 in 2011 (as compared to 72% of people born in the United States).[657][658][659] This relative scarcity of older illegal immigrants is because:

the 1986 amnesty transformed most illegal immigrants from that era into legal immigrants.[660]

three-quarters of all U.S. immigrants are in their primary working years (as compared to half of the people born in the United States).[661]

Government Benefits

* Government welfare programs are generally designed to provide more benefits to lower-income people.[662]

* In 2015, 15% of U.S. households had income below the poverty line, and 33% had income below twice the poverty line. This varied by immigration status as follows:

* The last four nations listed above are the homelands of roughly 73% of the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012.[665]

* Federal law states:

Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that aliens within the nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.

It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.[666]

* Federal laws, court rulings, and administrative decisions provide the following benefits to immigrants, regardless of whether they are in the U.S. legally:

Federal taxpayers must provide annual cash payments to low-income immigrants for each dependent child they have.[667][668]

Most hospitals with emergency departments are required to provide an “examination” and “stabilizing treatment” for anyone who comes to such a facility and requests care for an emergency medical condition, a childbirth, routine prenatal care, or routine postpartum care—regardless of their ability to pay or immigration status.[669][670][671][672]

States cannot deny a free public education to anyone based on their immigration status.[674]

Everyone who is eligible for free public education is also eligible for the national school lunch and school breakfast programs.[675]

Immigrants can enroll their children in federally funded childcare and preschool programs.[676][677]

The federal government grants automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States, whether their parents are illegal immigrants, visitors, or tourists.[678][679] This entitles their children to all federal welfare benefits, such as food stamps, housing, home energy, and health insurance. These benefits are generally awarded based on the reported incomes of the children’s households or families.[680][681][682][683][684][685][686][687]

* In 2009, Pew Research estimated that 73% of the children of illegal immigrants were U.S. citizens.[688]

* In 2015, 3.9 million or 9% of all food stamps recipients were U.S. citizen children who were living with noncitizens.[689]

* The majority of states and numerous cities and towns offer welfare and other benefits to illegal and/or non-citizen immigrants that extend beyond what the federal government provides.[690][691][692]

* Federal law does not provide the following welfare benefits to illegal immigrants and people temporarily living in the U.S. with visas:

* Under federal law, legal non-citizen immigrants are generally ineligible to receive benefits from the federal welfare programs listed directly above for five years or more from when they first enter the United States. One of the exceptions to this rule is that children can receive food stamps without a waiting period.[695][696]

* Refugees and asylees are generally eligible for all federal welfare programs and for other programs specifically for refugees and asylees.[697][698]

* In 2015, 13% of U.S. households received food stamps. This varied by immigration status as follows:

* Social Security’s formula for old-age benefits is structured to provide people with lower incomes higher ratios of annual benefits to taxes.[702] The graph below compares the annual old-age benefits to lifetime payroll taxes for 23-year-olds who will work until the age of 67 while earning constant incomes:

* Longer lifespans increase the financial strains on the Social Security program.[704] Workers who are currently 40 years old will receive full Social Security retirement benefits when they turn 67 years old.[705] The following table shows their life expectancies beyond this age:

* Per academic texts that discuss the impacts of immigration on educational methods:

In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer.

The increasing diversity places new demands on school systems, which are often blamed for educational problems. Many school systems respond by attempting to reverse traditional practices, which are perceived as ineffective in serving new student populations. Thus, countries with highly centralized education systems have sought to relax central control in order to make schools more responsive to the diverse student population. Countries with the tradition of local control, on the other hand, have moved in the opposite direction and have increased central oversight—all in response to the perception the changing demographics require a shift from the status quo, whatever it was.[708]

Today’s high schools serve a more academically diverse student population than at any other time in history, and this diversity will only increase in the decades to come. …

1) The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms, and the range of competency or readiness levels within every subject will expand. Yet many teachers are still operating as if diverse backgrounds and readiness levels had no relation to learner success.

2. In order to teach culturally and academically diverse populations effectively, schools will have to move from standardized instruction to personalized instruction. Our best knowledge of effective teaching and learning suggest clearly the teacher responsiveness to race, gender, culture, readiness, experience, interest, and learning preferences results in increased student motivation and achievement.[709]

* In 2016, ICE employed more than 20,000 people and spent about $6 billion, or about 0.1% of total federal spending.[711][712]

* From 2003 through 2009, state governments spent about $7 billion dollars on “selected operating costs (i.e., correctional officer salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities) associated with incarcerating criminal aliens.” This equates to about 0.05% of state and local government spending over this period. The federal government reimbursed the states for about 23% of these incarceration costs.[713][714]

Crime

General

* Government data on the crime rates of immigrants is often unclear, because:

governments typically do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants in their crime statistics.

federal, state, and local governments differ in how they define and record the immigration status of people who pass through the criminal justice system.

certain state and local governments have enacted “sanctuary” policies that prohibit law enforcement from examining the immigration status of arrestees and convicts.

illegal immigrant crime victims may not report crimes committed against them due to fear of deportation.[715][716][717][718]

millions of immigrants use fraudulent Social Security numbers, fake birth certificates, or other forms of identity fraud to mask their immigration status.[719][720][721]

surveys are dependent upon respondent honesty, and certain groups of immigrants often misrepresent themselves as citizens in surveys.[722]

* The federal government generally screens legal immigrants for criminal records before allowing them to reside in the United States.[723] Before becoming a U.S. citizen, immigrants must pass a full FBI background check.[724]

NOTE: Due to limitations of government crime data, most of the facts below combine all non-citizens into a single category. This category is comprised of people who live in the U.S. legally and illegally. The legal non-citizens undergo background checks before residing in the U.S., while the illegal non-citizens do not.[725]

* Based on U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015, immigrants who remain in the U.S. and:

are U.S. citizens are 79% less likely than the general U.S. population to be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.

are not U.S. citizens are 7% more likely than the general U.S. population to be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.

are from Latin America are 5.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants from Europe and 6.3 times more likely than immigrants from Asia.[726][727]

* Arrest and incarceration rates of immigrants who enter the U.S. are higher than those who remain in the U.S., because:

in the decade ending in 2015, the federal government removed at least 1.5 million noncitizens who were convicted of crimes in the U.S.[728][729] This equates to ten times the number of noncitizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities during 2015.[730]

after convicts are released from prison, roughly three-quarters of them are arrested within five years for committing new crimes.[731][732][733]

* Based on U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015, the numbers and types of immigrants who remain in the U.S. and are incarcerated in adult correctional facilities varied as follows:

* Based on data from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Congressional Research Service determined in 2016 that:

Until recently, the proportion of noncitizens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails corresponded closely to that of noncitizens in the U.S. population, but unreported incarceration data since 2013 has hindered such comparisons.[736]

* Based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, during 2010, non-citizens who remained in the U.S. accounted for:

6.9% of crime-related arrests.[738] This figure does not include civil traffic offenses and arrests for living illegally in the U.S.[739][740]

* In 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of 249,000 non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2003–2009. This study represented “a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and local levels,” because there “are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails.” The study found that these non-citizen inmates had been arrested for 2.9 million offenses committed within the U.S., including:

* The figures above do not account for crimes that did not result in arrests.[742] In the United States:

one person was arrested for every 2.2 aggravated assaults committed during 2015.[743][744][745][746]

65% of murders led to a suspect being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system during 2014.[747]

murders committed by black and Hispanic people are less likely to be solved than murders committed by white people.[748]

* Illegal immigrants tend to live in areas with large numbers of other immigrants,[749][750] and roughly 90% of murder perpetrators are the same race as their victims.[751]

Removable Criminal Aliens

* “Removable criminal aliens” are non-citizens who have been convicted of crimes in the U.S. that warrant immediate deportation hearings. This term can apply to both legal and illegal immigrants, but it does not apply to immigrants who:

are living in the U.S. illegally but have not been convicted of a crime (unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a criminal offense unless the person was previously deported or fled the nation after a removal order was issued).

“1.94 million removable criminal aliens are in the United States today.”[754]

* Federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General to begin removal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible” when an alien is convicted of a crime that “makes the alien deportable.”[755][756] The Attorney General is under the authority of the President.[757]

Media & Academia

* In 2016, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president of the U.S., told CNN that Mexican immigrants “are more law-abiding than U.S. citizens, and that is a statistic.”[758] PolitiFact, a group with a mission to “help you find the truth in politics,”[759] reported that this statement is “mostly true.”[760]

* In support of its “mostly true” ruling, PolitiFact wrote that “crime involvement among foreign-born residents is lower than that of U.S.-born citizens.” As evidence of this, PolitiFact cited a report from the American Immigration Council written by three Ph.D.’s and accurately paraphrased it as follows:

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population increased from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent, and the number of unauthorized immigrants went up from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. At the same time, violent crime rate (murder, rape and aggravated assault) decreased 48 percent and property crime rate fell 41 percent, the report said, citing FBI data.[761][762]

Association is not the same as causation. This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.[763][764][765]

* PolitiFact and the American Immigration Council did not mention that the foreign-born share of the U.S. population also increased during the 1970s and 1980s, and during this time, the homicide rate rose, fell, and rose again:

One of the worst abuses of analytics is to cherry pick results. Cherry pickers tout analysis findings when the results serve the purpose at hand. But, they ignore the findings when the results conflict with the original plan.[767]

* As further support for its “mostly true” ruling,” PolitiFact wrote that the same American Immigration Council report:

analyzed data from the Census’ 2010 American Community Survey and found that about 1.6 percent of all immigrant males (Census does not specify legal status) between 18 and 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born population.[768][769]

* The documentation provided by the American Immigration Council to support this claim consists of one footnote that states “2010 American Community Survey.”[770] Just Facts repeatedly requested data to verify this claim from the American Immigration Council, and they did not provide it.[771]

* Per an academic book about research integrity:

“An important goal in the social sciences is that results, and therefore the data, be reproducible.”

“When data are not available, researchers must either trust past published results, or they must recreate the data as best they can based on descriptions in the published works, which often turn out to be too cryptic.”

* Per an academic work about data analysis and the “importance of transparency”:

The techniques of analysis should be sufficiently transparent that other researchers familiar with the area can recognize how the data are being collected and tested, and can replicate the outcomes of the analysis procedure.[773][774][775]

* As evidence that Mexican immigrants are “less likely to commit crimes than the native-born,” PolitiFact cited the same American Immigration Council report and wrote that:

2010 Census data that shows incarceration rates of young, less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men—which comprise the bulk of the unauthorized population—are “significantly lower” than incarceration rates of native-born young men without a high-school diploma.[776][777]

* If the claim above is accurate, it would not show that Mexican immigrants are “less likely to commit crimes than the native-born.” It would show that young, male Mexican immigrants with low education who remain in the U.S. are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born young men without a high-school diploma. With regard to:

remaining in the U.S.:

In the decade ending in 2015, the federal government removed at least 1.5 million noncitizens who were convicted of crimes in the U.S.[778][779] This equates to ten times the number of noncitizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities during 2015.[780]

After convicts are released from prison, roughly three-quarters of them are arrested again within five years for committing new crimes.[781][782][783]

education:

In 2013, 54% of Mexico and Central American immigrants aged 25–64 did not have a high school diploma or equivalent, as compared to 7% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group.[784]

In 1997, 65% of inmates in prisons and jails did not have a high school diploma, as compared to 18% of adults in the general population.[785]

age:

People aged 17–34 comprise 24% of the U.S. population and commit about 67% of the murders.[786][787]

Non-citizens comprise about 7.2% of the U.S. population and about 10.2% of the population aged 17-34.[788][789]

Bianca E. Bersani, an assistant professor and director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Massachusetts Boston, says her research also shows that crime involvement among foreign-born residents is lower than that of U.S.-born citizens.

It holds true for Mexican immigrants, she said.

“When ethnicity can be distinguished and Mexican immigrants isolated from the group of first-generation immigrants, research continues to find that Mexican immigrants have lower rates of involvement in crime compared to their U.S-born peers,” Bersani said.[790][791]

* The statement above is based on a paper authored by Bersani that was published by the journal Justice Quarterly in 2014. This study is based on the self-reported criminal activities of a group of youth born in 1980 to 1984.[792]

* Bersani’s paper does not compare the nationally representative crime rates of foreign-born residents to U.S.-born citizens. It compares the crime rates of foreign-born residents to U.S.-born citizens using “an over-sample of Hispanic and African-American youth.”[793][794] With regard to such samples:

In cases where law enforcement identified the race or ethnicity of murder perpetrators in 2014, black people were 7.2 more times likely to commit murder than white people, and Hispanics were 2.6 times more likely to commit murder than whites.[795]

Surveys of crime victims conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice from 2012 to 2014 show that black people are about 2.4 more times likely to commit non-homicidal violent crimes than white people, and Hispanics are 5% less likely to commit such crimes than whites.[796][797][798][799]

* Bersani’s paper does not provide a straightforward accounting of crimes committed by Mexican immigrants.[800][801] Instead, it uses an “analytic strategy” called “group-based trajectory modeling” to identify “clusters of individuals who display similar behavioral trajectories over a period of time.” Using this strategy, Bersani found that:

“violent crime is virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants.”

“drug crime” is “virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants….”[802]

* In 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of 249,000 non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2003–2009. This study represented “a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and local levels,” because there “are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails.” The study found that these non-citizen inmates had been arrested for the following violent and drug crimes committed within the U.S.:

in no case was Mexican immigrant ethnicity found to be a risk factor for trajectory group membership. Mexican, Central American, Caribbean, and Asian immigrants were no more likely to be in a high-rate offender group than the low rate or non-offender groups.[804]

* Based on U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015, Latin American immigrants who remain in the U.S. are 5.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than European immigrants and 6.3 times more likely than Asian immigrants:

* Per various academic publications that address the topic of statistical analytic strategies:

“Statistical analysis is very easy to misuse and misinterpret. Any method of analysis used, whenever applied to data, will provide a result, and all statistical results look authoritative.”[807]

“Manipulation of data involves subjecting data to multiple statistical techniques until one achieves the desired outcome.”[808]

“A general principle of data analysis recommends using the most appropriate, yet simplest, statistical techniques in research so findings can be better understood, interpreted, and communicated.”[809][810]

Statistical “malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. … Indeed, as a general rule, the better the science, the less the need for complex analysis….”[811]

* Citing the same or similar studies as PolitiFact, various media outlets have reported that:

“immigrants are far more law-abiding than natives, regardless of race, class or education.” – New York Times[812]

“immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated.” – Wall Street Journal[813]

in 2010, “1.6 percent of immigrant males 18 to 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of native-born males. … The trend holds when comparing less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men—who make up the bulk of the undocumented immigrant population—to their native-born counterparts….” – Washington Post[814]

Federal Politics

* The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws regarding citizenship with the approval of the President or by overriding a presidential veto. A veto override requires the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.[815][816]

* The U.S. Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to ensure that federal laws are “faithfully executed” and to select people who will carry out this work.[817][818]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the President.[819][820]

* With regard to immigration and crime, the 2016 Democratic Party Platform states:

We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values. We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities.[821]

* With regard to immigration and crime, the 2016 Republican Party Platform states:

In a time of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified individuals in this country poses grave risks to the safety and sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws.

The Department of Homeland Security must use its authority to keep dangerous aliens off our streets and to expedite expulsion of criminal aliens. Gang membership should be a deportable offense.

To ensure our national security, refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism.[822]

* Federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General to begin removal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible” when a non-citizen is convicted of a “deportable” offense.[823] The Attorney General is under the authority of the President,[824] and deportable offenses include but are not limited to:

a “crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.”

“an aggravated felony.”

possessing a firearm.

drug crimes “other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana.”

domestic violence.

stalking.

identity fraud.

falsely claiming to be a citizen to get a job or receive welfare benefits.

* In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) in Zadvydas v. Davis that the government must release illegal immigrants who are ex-convicts into the U.S. population if their home countries refuse to take them back.[827] In this case:

both of the justices appointed by Democrats and three justices appointed by Republicans ruled that the government must release them.

four justices appointed by Republicans ruled that the government is not required to release them.[828]

* U.S. law specifies penalties for foreign nations that refuse to take back people who are slated for deportation:

On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.[829]

* During a July 2016 congressional hearing, Obama administration officials from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security stated that:

the federal law above that requires the Secretary of State to stop granting visas to nations that won’t take back their people is a “very, very powerful tool” to remove criminal immigrants from the U.S.

the Obama administration has never “used” this law.

“Tens of thousands” of convicts who were slated for deportation have been released onto U.S. streets because their home countries refused to take them back.[830][831]

* In 2014, the Obama administration “released from its custody 30,558 criminal aliens with a total of 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them.”[832][833]

* Between October 1, 2010 and July 21, 2015, the Obama administration released 124 criminal aliens who were later charged with murder-related crimes committed in the U.S. after their release and before February 2016.[834][835][836]

* In 2015, the Boston Globe published an investigation of immigrants convicted of sex crimes that were released since 2008 by the Bush and Obama administrations. It found that:

“hundreds of immigrants convicted of sex crimes who should have been deported” were instead “released in the United States because their homelands refused to take them back.”

“immigration officials have released them without making sure they register with local authorities as sex offenders.”

the Obama administration refused to reveal the names of these convicted sex offenders “to protect their privacy,” but the Boston Globe filed a federal lawsuit to force the release of these names by “arguing that the privacy policy endangered Americans and immigrants alike.”

the Globe won this lawsuit, but the Obama administration “provided complete records only for the criminals freed from 2008 to 2012, the year the Globe filed the lawsuit.” The Globe “demanded a more current list,” but the administration would not supply it.

“using the 2008 to 2012 list with names of more than 6,800 criminals, the Globe identified 424 released immigrants who had previously been convicted of sex-related crimes, including 209 who had appeared in the national public sex offender registry.”

“at least 34 of the 424 released sex offenders—including some who did register with local police—were back in jail as of last month, state records show, some for heinous crimes committed after ICE released them.”[837][838]

* In November of 2014, the Obama administration formally changed its immigration enforcement policies to “focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats.” It did this by directing all immigration and border security personnel to:

apply “prosecutorial discretion” as to “whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal” for all illegal immigrants.

never pursue the “removal of an alien not identified as a priority” unless an ICE Field Office Director concludes that “removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.”[839][840][841]

* Obama’s policy officially became effective on January 5, 2015 with “training and guidance … provided to the workforce prior to the effective date.”[842]

* In the federal government’s 2015 and 2016 fiscal years (October 2014 through September 2016[843]), ICE removed 21% fewer convicted criminals per year than in its 2014 fiscal year:

* An immigration “detainer” or “hold” is a request from ICE to a local law enforcement agency to detain a non-citizen convicted of a criminal offense who has been taken into custody by local law enforcement. ICE typically asks the agency to hold the individual for 48 hours, so that ICE can decide whether or not the person should be deported and take appropriate action before the criminal is released.[845][846]

* The Bush administration began issuing tens of thousands of detainers in the last three years of his presidency, reaching a peak of 186,978 in 2008. The Obama administration continued to increase this up to 309,697 detainers in 2011. Thereafter, the Obama administration issued fewer detainers every year though the end of his presidency, reaching a low of 13,253 in 2016:

* From 2012 to 2015, the Obama administration deported less than half of the people that ICE took into custody under immigration detainers.[848]

* The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University is an organization that provides the public with “information about staffing, spending, and enforcement activities of the federal government.”[849] Per a February 2017 report by this organization about immigration detainers:

“A recent and dramatic change” in ICE policies “occurred in the waning months of the Obama Administration.”

“Fields of information that ICE had routinely provided” in response to Freedom of Information Act requests “started getting left off the files … without explanation.”

These missing fields make the information “largely unusable.”

“Omitted, for example, from the files were … what actions ICE took to deport individuals once they were in ICE custody, along with many other data fields.”

“All of this information … are essential to the public’s understanding of what the agency is actually doing to enforce immigration laws.”

“Thus far, administrative appeals within the agency have been unavailing,” and a lawsuit “appears to be needed to challenge these new unlawful practices.[850]

* In January 2016, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to ensure:

“the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States….”

“that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal law do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”

that federal resources are prioritized to remove non-citizens who:

“have been convicted of any criminal offense.”

“have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved.”

“have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.”

“have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency.”

“have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits.”

“are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States.”

“in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.”[851]

Sanctuary Cities

* Sanctuary cities, counties, and states are those that shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Some jurisdictions have enacted sanctuary policies into law, and others implement these policies through less formal means.[852][853]

* Federal law states that federal, state, and local government officials “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict,” sending or receiving information about “the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual” to or from federal immigration enforcement agencies.[854][855]

* An immigration “detainer” or “hold” is a request from ICE to a local law enforcement agency to detain a non-citizen convicted of a criminal offense who has been taken into custody by local law enforcement. ICE typically asks the agency to hold the individual for 48 hours, so that ICE can decide whether or not the person should be deported and take appropriate action before the criminal is released.[856][857]

* From January 2014 to September 2016, local law enforcement agencies declined to honor at least 21,205 detainers. These agencies were located in 567 counties in 48 states, including the District of Columbia.[858]

* Between September 2013 and June 2015, law enforcement agencies declined to honor about 17,000 detainers, 61% of which were in California.[859]

* The federal government reimburses states for some costs of incarcerating non-citizens in state prisons and local jails. Under this program, federal taxpayers paid part of the incarceration costs for 296,000 inmates in 2009.[860] The breakdown by state was as follows:

Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s requests for transfer of those individuals. Moreover, these releases constrain ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because they required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.[862]

* Per the American Civil Liberties Union, “more than 300 jurisdictions across the country” have adopted “community trust policies,” and:

Far from being “sanctuary” zones, these localities recognize that immigrant victims and witnesses will not report crime if they fear that police are collaborating with immigration enforcement authorities—and thus, in order to combat crime, local police need to win and maintain the trust of immigrant communities.[863]

* Due in part or whole to the growth of sanctuary policies, law enforcement agencies turned over about 12,000 fewer convicted criminals to ICE in 2015 than in 2014.[864]

* After being shielded from deportation by sanctuary policies, some immigrants who were previously convicted of crimes and released have gone on to kill people. Some examples include:

Edwin Ramos, who murdered Tony Bologna and two of his sons, Michael and Matthew. Ramos mistook one of the sons for a rival gang member and gunned down his family as they drove by in their car.[865][866]

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle while she was out for a walk with her father and a family friend. Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times.[867][868]

Ever Valles, who fatally shot 32-year-old Tim Cruz during a robbery. Valles was a known gang member.[869][870]

Victor Aureliano Martinez, who broke into the home of 64-year-old Marilyn Pharis, raped her, and beat her with a hammer. Jose Fernando Villagomez, a U.S. citizen, also participated in this crime.[871][872]

* In January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order to ensure “that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal” immigration laws “do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”[873]

* In January 2017, Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley sponsored a bill that would ensure federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.[874] As of March 18, 2017:

* In January 2017, Republican Congresswoman Diane Black sponsored a bill that would limit federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.[877] Republican Pat Toomey sponsored a similar bill in the U.S. Senate.[878] As of March 18, 2017:

113 Republicans and 0 Democrats have cosponsored these bills.[879][880]

Illicit Drugs

* In 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seized about 2.1 million pounds of narcotics at the Mexican border. This was 64% of all narcotics seized by the Department of Homeland Security that year.[883][884]

the number of heroin deaths is undercounted by as much as 30 percent. This is due both to variations in state reporting procedures, and because heroin metabolizes into morphine very quickly in the body, making it difficult to determine the presence of heroin.[891]

Identity, Document, & Tax Fraud

* Federal law generally prohibits illegal immigrants from earning income in the United States.[892][893]

* According to the Social Security Administration, roughly 7.0 million or 65% of illegal immigrants worked for income during 2010.[894]

* According to Pew Research, roughly 8.1 million or 72% of illegal immigrants worked for income or looked for such work during 2012.[895]

* Illegal immigrants earn income in the U.S. by using fraudulent or expired documentation or working for cash “under the table” or “off the books.”[896][897]

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2010:

0.6 million illegal immigrants “had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas.”

0.7 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.”

1.8 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers “that did not match their name.”

3.9 million illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy.”[898]

* In 2017, California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon testified before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee:

I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license … if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.[899][900]

* Federal laws states:

Whoever uses … an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false … shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.[901]

* The law above was initially enacted in 1986 as part of a comprehensive immigration reform compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[902][903][904][905] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[906][907] This legislation:

legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[908][909][910]

made verification of immigration status a “lasting requirement for all new hires.”[911][912][913]

“significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them.”

“in November 1998 in Los Angeles,” immigration officials “seized nearly two million counterfeit documents, such as … permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.”

“some aliens use fraudulent documents in connection with more serious illegal activities, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism.”[915]

* Per a 2005 article in the New York Times:

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card.[916]

* In 2010, an ABC News affiliate in Utah reported:

“As of February, 1,265 Utah children, under the age of 12, are victims of somebody else misusing their [Social Security] number.” This figure accounts only for reported cases.

Utah Assistant Attorney General Rich Hamp stated, “In virtually every case we have investigated, with the exception of one, it has come back to an illegal immigrant.”

“Hamp says it is just so much easier to use a child’s number versus an adult’s number. ‘Someone on a child’s number is going to get away with years of misuse before anyone discovers it.’”

“The state estimates around 20,000 Utah children’s numbers are being used. Some, like Ron Mortensen, a child identity expert, believe the number could be closer to 50,000.”[917]

* In 2016, the IRS Inspector General reported:

During “the period February 2011 to December 2015, the IRS identified almost 1.1 million taxpayers who were victims of employment-related identity theft.”

“In cases of employment-related identity theft, the discrepancy results from the innocent taxpayer’s stolen identity being used by another individual to gain employment. This can cause significant burden to innocent taxpayers, including the incorrect computation of taxes based on income that does not belong to them.”[918]

* Willfully evading federal taxes is a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations.[919]

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that 3.9 million or 36% of illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy” during 2010.[920]

IRS data show that when taxpayers have a choice about reporting their income, voluntary tax compliance rates are disturbingly low.[921][922]

* In instances where income was reported to the IRS and withheld by third parties (such as employers), the noncompliance rate was about 1% from 2008 to 2010. In instances where income was not subject to reporting or withholding, the noncompliance rate was 63%.[923]

* Tax credits are provisions of tax law that reduce income taxes for people who engage in certain behaviors or meet other criteria. Some tax credits are refundable, and low-income households with tax credits that exceed the income tax they owe receive the difference as cash payments from the federal government.[924][925][926] Per the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, “the risk of fraud for these types of claims is significant.”[927]

* Federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving most federal benefits, but the IRS has concluded that this restriction does not apply to refundable child tax credits. In 2010, the IRS paid out $4.2 billion in refundable child tax credits to 2.3 million tax filers who were not legally authorized to work in the United States.[928][929]

* In 2012, WTHR, an NBC News affiliate in Indiana, aired a report by investigative journalist Bob Segall about illegal immigrants who were fraudulently obtaining child tax credits by claiming credit for children who live in Mexico. The IRS responded to the report by stating that the agency “has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund.”[930]

* In the wake of the WTHR news report, 11 current and former IRS employees contacted WHTR and made statements such as the following:

“I just saw your report and there’s something I need to tell you. I see this stuff every day and there isn’t anything I can do about it.”

“Most of these documents are fraudulent and there’s absolutely no system here to catch it.”

“We don’t have the resources to follow up on much and we’re not allowed to flag problems.”

“We get applications from Mexico, Honduras, China, Japan, Bulgaria, all over the world. … I guarantee 90% of them are phony. We see the same signatures hundreds of times. We see the same docs photocopied and attached to different applications. It’s the same person, same photo, same address. I’ve seen the same birth certificate twelve times now in the past day.”[931]

* Two months later, the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration published an audit of the IRS department that handles tax returns for illegal immigrants and foreign investors. Since these individuals are ineligible to receive Social Security Numbers, the IRS issues them ITINs (Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers).[932] The audit found:

The IRS had issued 9,909 ITINS to 9,522 people allegedly living at a single address in Tulsa, Oklahoma (more examples in footnote).[933]

The IRS had mailed 23,994 ITIN refunds totaling $46,378,040 to a single address in Atlanta, Georgia (more examples in footnote).[934]

The IRS had deposited 2,706 ITIN refunds totaling $7,319,518 into a single bank account (more examples in footnote).[935]

In 2010, the IRS eliminated a process used to detect fraud in ITIN applications.[936]

* With regard to fraudulent tax refunds obtained through identity theft, IRS Inspector General J. Russell George stated, “Once the money is out the door, it is almost impossible to get it back.”[938]

* In February 2013, Republican Congressman Sam Johnson sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[939][940] The bill was cosponsored by 67 Republicans and no Democrats. The House never voted on it.[941]

* In February 2015, Republican Congressman Larry Bucshon sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[942][943] The bill was cosponsored by four Republicans and no Democrats.[944] The House never voted on it.[945]

Electoral Issues

Political Patterns

* A 2012 poll of 2,900 immigrants who were U.S. citizens found that 62% identified as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and 13% as Independents.[947][948]

* A nationally representative bilingual poll of 784 immigrant Latinos commissioned by Pew Research in 2011 found that:

81% said they would prefer “a bigger government providing more services.” and 12% said they would prefer “a smaller government with fewer services.” In comparison, 41% of the general U.S. population say they would prefer a bigger government, and 48% said they would prefer a smaller government.

58% said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, as compared 41% of the general U.S. population.

53% said homosexuality should be accepted by society, as compared to 58% of the general U.S. population.[949]

in U.S. presidential elections from 1980 to 2012, Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate by margins ranging from 18 to 51 percentage points.[952]

71% of Latinos voted for Barack Obama in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, as compared to 27% for Mitt Romney.[953]

* Eliseo Medina, a former executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, led “the union’s efforts to achieve comprehensive immigration reform….”[954] In a 2009 speech, Medina stated:

Latinos have “voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates” and given Barack Obama “two out of every three” of their votes.

the “progressive community” can “expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future” by putting “12 million” unauthorized immigrants “on the path to citizenship and eventually voting.”

turning illegal immigrants into citizens will create a progressive “governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”[955]

* Illegal immigrants typically live in areas of the U.S. where Democrats have greater political power.[956]

* Per the Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics:

Judicial interpretation of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act “requires states with large minority populations to draw boundaries that will increase the probability that minorities will win seats.”

“Hispanics have thus dramatically improved their representation in national political office, from a little more than 3,000 Hispanic public officials in 1985 to nearly 5,200 in 1998.”[957]

Illegal Registration and Voting Laws

* U.S. law generally forbids non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in federal elections. If convicted, the penalties for:

making a false claim to U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote include a fine, up to five years in prison, and/or deportation.

illegal voting include a fine, up to one year in prison, and/or deportation.[958]

* A few municipalities in Maryland allow some non-citizens to vote in local elections.[959][960]

Illegal Registration and Voting Openings

* The federal voter registration form does not require people to prove they are U.S. citizens, but some states require applicants to submit full Social Security numbers and perform checks on these numbers.[961][962]

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2010:

0.7 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.”

1.8 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers “that did not match their name.”[963]

* Voter registration requirements vary by state, but they generally require some form of identification.[964][965][966]

* In 2017, California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon testified before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee:

I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license … if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.[967][968]

* Per a 2005 article in the New York Times:

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card.[969]

* In 2002, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published an investigation of identity fraud by immigrants. It found that:

“the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive.”

“significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them.”

“in November 1998 in Los Angeles,” immigration officials “seized nearly two million counterfeit documents, such as … permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.”[970]

* Early in 2016, the Obama administration supported a court injunction to prevent Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia from requiring people to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.[971]

* Shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama stated in an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez that voting records are not cross-checked against immigration databases and “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etcetera.”[972]

Advance video to 3:20

2013 McLaughlin Survey

* In 2013, McLaughlin & Associates conducted a scientific bilingual poll of 800 Hispanic adults living in the U.S.[973][974][975][976] In this survey, 13% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.[977] Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[978] the margin of sampling error is ± 6 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[979][980][981]

these survey results and Census Bureau population estimates, 800,000 to 2.2 million non-citizen Hispanics stated they were registered to vote in 2013.[982]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could understate the number of non-citizen Hispanics registered to vote include the following:

Some non-citizens claim they are not registered to vote when, in fact, they are. In a 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey (detailed below), 14% ± 9 percentage points of self-declared non-citizens who said they were not registered to vote were found to be registered when matched to a database of consumer and voting data.[983][984][985][986]

The Census Bureau counts only the number of non-citizens who respond to Census surveys, and some immigrants, especially unauthorized ones, avoid such surveys out of fear of exposing their immigration status.[987][988]

Certain groups of immigrants often mispresent themselves as citizens in Census surveys.[989]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could overstate the number of non-citizen Hispanics registered to vote include the following:

Non-citizens who are not registered to vote may be more risk-averse to exposing their immigration status and thus more likely to:

avoid the McLaughlin survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.

mispresent themselves as citizens in the McLaughlin survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.

2008 Harvard/YouGov Survey

* In 2008, Harvard University’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study analyzed data from 32,800 adults polled by YouGov to assess their political views and activities.[990] The authors of a 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies weighted the data from self-declared non-citizens in this survey to make it representative of the non-citizen population in the United States.[991] Based on this data:

15% of non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.

a database match with consumer and voter registration records showed that an additional 12% of non-citizens in the database were registered to vote, even though they said they were not registered.[992]

* Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[993] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voter registration is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[994][995][996]

the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[997] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voter registration is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[998][999][1000]

these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 2.8 million to 7.9 million non-citizens were registered to vote in 2008.[1001]

* In the same Harvard/YouGov study:

8% of self-declared non-citizens said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

82% of the non-citizens who said “I definitely voted” stated that they voted for Barack Obama.

a database match with consumer and voting records showed that an additional 8% of non-citizens in the database voted in this election, even though they said they had not voted.[1002]

* Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1003] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voting is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1004][1005][1006]

the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1007] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voting is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1008][1009][1010]

these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.[1011][1012]

The YouGov data was collected via an internet poll,[1013] which are generally unreliable because they do not collect a random sample of respondents.[1014] The Harvard study corrects for this by using a process called “matching.” This involves using a portion of the survey respondents that “mimics” the target population characteristics, like race, age, and education. Matching is a common procedure for turning non-random samples into random ones, but it relies on an “assumption” that there is “no difference” in how people would answer a survey if they have the same characteristics.[1015]

The Harvard study matched the YouGov polling data to the characteristics of U.S. citizens,[1016] but all of the voting and registration data above was weighted by the authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper to make it representative of non-citizens. Like matching, weighting relies on the assumption that that there is no difference in how people would respond to the registration and voting questions if they have similar characteristics.[1017]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could overstate the number of non-citizens registered or voting include the following:

If survey respondents make random errors on the citizenship question, it is far more likely that citizens will misidentify themselves as non-citizens than vice-versa. This is because the survey population has many more citizens than non-citizens.[1018] However, other data from this study suggests that such errors did not materially affect the results of this survey.[1019]

The total registration and voting figures are based on the assumption that everyone who said they registered/voted or were recorded in the database as registered or voting had, in fact, done so. This means that either a self-report or database match were counted as evidence of registration/voting. This methodology is consistent with the facts that:

a 2016 paper published in the journal Public Opinion Quarterly found that “several apparently viable methods of matching survey respondents to government records severely underestimate the proportion of Americans who were registered to vote.”[1020]

non-citizens commonly use false identifications and Social Security numbers,[1021] and they may register or vote under these names. Such usage of false identifications is evidenced by the fact that the consumer/voting database matches conducted for this survey found records for 90% of all participants but only 41% of all non-citizen participants.[1022][1023]

Non-citizens who are not registered to vote may be more risk-averse to exposing their immigration status and thus more likely to:

avoid the YouGov survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.

mispresent themselves as citizens in the YouGov survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.

* Uncertainties in the data above that could understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting include the following:

The Census Bureau counts only the number of non-citizens who respond to Census surveys, and some immigrants, especially unauthorized ones, avoid such surveys out of fear of exposing their immigration status.[1024][1025]

Certain groups of immigrants often mispresent themselves as citizens in Census surveys.[1026]

This survey does not account for any non-citizens who denied being registered/voting and did so using a false identity.[1027]

* For facts that address criticisms of the data above, see the following articles from Just Facts:

2010 Harvard/YouGov Survey

* In the 2010 Harvard/YouGov survey:

16% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.

3.5% said they “definitely voted” in the mid-term elections that year.[1028]

* Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1029] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1030][1031][1032]

these survey results and Census Bureau population estimates, 1.9 million to 3.9 million non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and –291,000 to 1.6 million said they voted.[1033]

* The uncertainties of the 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey also apply to the 2010 survey. In addition, the following factor could understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting:

Some non-citizens claim they are not registered to vote when, in fact, they are. In a 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey (detailed below), 14% ± 9 percentage points of self-declared non-citizens who said they were not registered to vote were found to be registered when matched to a database of registered voters

2012 Harvard/YouGov Survey

* In the 2012 Harvard/YouGov survey:

14% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and 9% stated they “definitely voted” in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.

database matches with consumer and voting records showed that 22% of non-citizens in the database were registered to vote, and 12% voted in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.[1034]

* Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1035] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 4 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1036][1037][1038]

the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1039] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 6 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1040][1041][1042]

these self-reported registration/voting rates and Census Bureau population estimates, 2.0 million to 3.6 million non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and 1.0 million to 2.6 million said they voted.[1043]

these database-matched registration/voting rates and Census Bureau population estimates, 3.2 million to 5.6 million non-citizens were registered to vote, and 1.2 million to 3.6 million voted.[1044]

* The uncertainties of the 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey also apply to the 2012 survey. In addition, the following factor could understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting:

Unlike the data for the 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey, the 2012 data cited above does not provide a total figure for the number of unique non-citizens who said they registered/voted or were recorded in the database as registered/voting. Instead, these figures are isolated in the 2012 data, and the overlap between them is unknown to Just Facts.

Footnotes

[1] Entry: “immigrant.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th edition). Accessed April 14, 2017 at <www.thefreedictionary.com>

“The term ‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States. … The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

Page ii: “Naturalized citizen: A foreign-born individual who has become a U.S. citizen by fulfilling requirements set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, including, in most cases, having resided in the United States for at least five years.”

Noncitizens include lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (also referred to as “immigrants” or “green card holders”) who are admitted to the United States or who adjust status from within the United States to reside permanently and lawfully in the United States; legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time; and unauthorized aliens who are foreign nationals who enter the United States unlawfully without inspection (or with inspection but with false documents) or who enter the United States lawfully but overstay the terms of their temporary visa.

Page ii: “Unauthorized resident: A noncitizen of the United States who is in the United States without legal authorization. This group includes people who enter the country illegally and people who enter the country with valid visas but overstay their authorized time in the country.”

Page ii: “Legal temporary resident or visitor: A noncitizen of the United States who is admitted to the country with a temporary visa or who is allowed to enter without a visa. People in those categories include visitors who are in the United States for short periods and temporary residents who are in the United States for longer, although time-limited, stays.”

Page 1: “Noncitizens include … legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time….”

[11] Webpage: “Who We Are.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed March 24, 2017 at <www.ice.gov>

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety. ICE was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 employees in more than 400 offices in the United States and 46 foreign countries. The agency has an annual budget of approximately $6 billion, primarily devoted to two operational directorates—Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). These two operational directorates are supported by Management and Administration (M&A) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) to advance the ICE mission.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. USCIS is funded primarily by immigration and naturalization benefit fees charged to applicants and petitioners. Fees collected from individuals or organizations filing immigration benefit requests are deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA). Congress created the IEFA in 1988, establishing the authority to recover the full cost of immigration benefit processing. This account represents approximately 95 percent of USCIS’ fiscal year (FY) 2016 total budget authority. The remaining budget authority comes from two other mandatory fee accounts and appropriated funding for the E-Verify program. …

The new fees, including a reduced naturalization fee option for certain low income applicants, took effect on December 23, 2016. Here is a list of the changes. …

Mission Statement

USCIS will secure America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

We are the 19,000 government employees and contractors of USCIS working at 223 offices across the world.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The missions of the Department of Homeland Security are to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks; protect the American people, our critical infrastructure, and key resources; and respond to and recover from incidents that do occur. The third largest Cabinet department, DHS was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, largely in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. …

DHS employs 216,000 people in its mission to patrol borders, protect travelers and our transportation infrastructure, enforce immigration laws, and respond to disasters and emergencies. … Policy is coordinated by the Homeland Security Council at the White House, in cooperation with other defense and intelligence agencies, and led by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished by section 291(a) of Title 6, Domestic Security, upon completion of all transfers from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as provided for by chapter 1 of Title 6.

Functions of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization performed under the Border Patrol program, the detention and removal program, the intelligence program, the investigations program, and the inspections program, and all personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such programs, were transferred to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security by section 251 of Title 6 and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.

Functions of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization relating to adjudications of immigrant visa petitions, adjudications of naturalization petitions, adjudications of asylum and refugee applications, adjudications performed at service centers, and all other adjudications performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the Commissioner in support of such functions, were transferred to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security by section 271(b) of Title 6 and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified.

Page ii: “Naturalized citizen: A foreign-born individual who has become a U.S. citizen by fulfilling requirements set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, including, in most cases, having resided in the United States for at least five years.”

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.”

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part A (Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Becoming a U.S. Citizen):

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Naturalized U.S. citizens share equally in the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizenship offers immigrants the ability to:

• Vote in Federal elections;

• Travel with a U.S. Passport;

• Run for elective office where citizenship is required;

• Participate on a jury;

• Become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs;

• Obtain certain State and Federal benefits not available to noncitizens;

• Obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad; and

• Expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States.

Legal permanent resident: A noncitizen of the United States authorized to live, work, and study in the United States permanently. Such status is granted to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, including spouses, minor children, and parents. It can also be granted for family-sponsored preferences (for example, to extended family members such as aunts or cousins), employment-based preferences, and diversity preferences, although there is an annual cap on the number of people who can receive such grants. In addition, legal permanent resident status can be granted to people who are classified as refugees or asylum seekers.

From 2000 to 2012, more than 13 million people were granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the United States, an average of about 1 million per year. Lawful permanent residents are permitted to live, work, and study in the United States, and receiving LPR status is an important milestone on the path to U.S. citizenship. Roughly two-thirds of new LPRs were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or were admitted under family-sponsored preferences.

Page 1: “Noncitizens include lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (also referred to as ‘immigrants’ or ‘green card holders’) who are admitted to the United States or who adjust status from within the United States to reside permanently and lawfully in the United States….”

Page ii: “After becoming a legal permanent resident, a noncitizen immigrant receives a permanent resident card, commonly called a ‘green card,’ which serves as proof of permission to live and work in the country.”

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues Permanent Resident Cards (Form I-551), commonly called green cards, to individuals granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis.

The card is green in color and contains the bearer’s name, photo, fingerprint, card number, alien/USCIS number, birth date and card expiration date, along with several security features. …

The current version of the card was introduced in May 2010 and features security technologies such as holographic images, laser engraved fingerprints and high resolution micro-images.

…

Also in circulation are older Resident Alien Cards, issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service prior to December 1997. These cards are peach in color and contain the bearer’s fingerprint and photo. Resident Alien Cards do NOT have document numbers.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced a redesign to the Permanent Resident Card (also known as a Green Card) and the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) as part of the Next Generation Secure Identification Document Project. USCIS will begin issuing the new cards on May 1, 2017.

These redesigns use enhanced graphics and fraud-resistant security features to create cards that are highly secure and more tamper-resistant than the ones currently in use.

The new card designs demonstrate USCIS’ commitment to continue taking a proactive approach against the threat of document tampering and fraud. They are also part of an ongoing effort between USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enhance document security and deter counterfeiting and fraud. …

Green Cards will have an image of the Statue of Liberty and a predominately green palette …

EAD cards will have an image of a bald eagle and a predominately red palette …

“Unauthorized immigrants” are all foreign-born non citizens residing in the country who are not “legal immigrants.” These definitions reflect standard and customary usage by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and academic researchers. The vast majority of unauthorized immigrants entered the country without valid documents or arrived with valid visas but stayed past their visa expiration date or otherwise violated the terms of their admission.

undocumented alien; undocumented (migratory workers); illegal alien. The usual and preferable term in AmE [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near-gobbledygook. The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, “not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally.” But the word strongly suggests “unaccounted for” to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning.

More than one writer has argued in favor of undocumented alien. E.g., “An alien’s unauthorized presence in the United States is not a crime under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. … Thus many people find the term undocumented alien preferable to illegal alien, since the former avoids the implication that one’s unauthorized presence in the United States is a crime.” Elizabeth Hull, Undocumented Aliens and Equal Protection Clause, 48 Brook L. Rev. 43, 43 n.2 (1981).

That statement is only equivocally correct, however: although illegal aliens’ presence in the country is not crime, their entry into the country is. As Justice Breanna wrote in Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 2015 (1982): “Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. Section 1325….” Moreover, it is wrong to equate illegality with criminality, inasmuch as many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence “illegal”).

Those who enter the U.K. illegally are termed by statute illegal entrants.

Page 71: “The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses.”

The Denver Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday defended its release of an illegal immigrant after he posted bond on theft charges only to be arrested for murder weeks later, saying it had no authority to hold him.

Ever Valles, 19, a Mexican national, was released from the Denver jail in late December. Last week he was charged by state prosecutors, along with another defendant, in the murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station this month.

“There’s no specific legal definition for a sanctuary city, but broadly, the term refers to municipalities that don’t let local law enforcement agents cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in an effort to shield its community of undocumented immigrants from deportation.”

Page ii: “Unauthorized resident: A noncitizen of the United States who is in the United States without legal authorization. This group includes people who enter the country illegally and people who enter the country with valid visas but overstay their authorized time in the country.”

The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (e.g., temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable….

“Unauthorized immigrants” are all foreign-born non citizens residing in the country who are not “legal immigrants.” These definitions reflect standard and customary usage by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and academic researchers. The vast majority of unauthorized immigrants entered the country without valid documents or arrived with valid visas but stayed past their visa expiration date or otherwise violated the terms of their admission. Some who entered as unauthorized immigrants or violated terms of admission have obtained work authorization by applying for adjustment to legal permanent status, obtaining Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or receiving Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. Data are very limited, but this “quasi-legal” group could account for as much as 10% of the unauthorized population. Many could also revert to unauthorized status.

[35] United States Attorneys’ Manual. Office of the United States Attorneys. Accessed April 26, 2017 at <www.justice.gov>

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

(a) Improper Time or Place; Avoidance of Examination or Inspection; Misrepresentation and Concealment of Facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(B) Improper Time or Place; Civil Penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(C) Marriage Fraud

Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(D) Immigration-Related Entrepreneurship Fraud

Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.

Congress has long supported efforts to identify, detain, and remove noncitizens1 who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. More generally, all unauthorized aliens2 within the United States are potentially subject to removal, and “interior enforcement” (i.e., alien removals originating from within the United States) is a basic element of immigration control. …

2 In this report, the terms “alien” and “foreign national” are used interchangeably.

Pages 2-3:

The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (e.g., temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Hence, not all unauthorized aliens living in the United States are subject to removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable; but few have been convicted of a crime and are classified as criminal aliens (unlawful presence in the United States itself is a civil violation, not a criminal offense).9

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin.

Page 19: “[A]rrests for civil immigration violations are for the purpose of placing individuals into removal proceedings, whereas arrests for criminal violations can lead to criminal prosecution.”

Page 22:

Civil immigration offense: A violation of federal immigration law under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the most common being residing in the United States without authorization. A person cannot be sent to prison for a civil immigration offense. They can be penalized by being deported from the United States, which technically is not classified as punishment.

[39] Ruling: Gonzales v. City of Peoria. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 16, 1983. <law.justia.com>

Several of the policy statements use the term “illegal alien,” which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation. There are numerous reasons why a person could be illegally present in the United States without having entered in violation of section 1325. Examples include expiration of a visitor’s visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment.

Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:

(1) Inadmissible at Time of Entry or of Adjustment of Status or Violates Status

(A) Inadmissible aliens

Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.

(B) Present in violation of law

Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(6) Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators

(A) Aliens present without admission or parole

(i) In general

An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for certain battered women and children

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that—

(I) the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner;

(II)

(a) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien’s child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and

(III) there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien’s unlawful entry into the United States.

“an official document or mark in your passport that allows you to enter or leave a country for a specific purpose or period of time”

[43] Webpage: “What is a U.S. Visa?” U.S. Department of State. Accessed April 26, 2017 at <travel.state.gov>

A citizen of a foreign country who seeks to enter the United States generally must first obtain a U.S. visa, which is placed in the traveler’s passport, a travel document issued by the traveler’s country of citizenship.

Certain international travelers may be eligible to travel to the United States without a visa if they meet the requirements for visa-free travel. The Visa section of this website is all about U.S. visas for foreign citizens to travel to the United States.

[44] Report: “Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2015.” By John Teke and Waleed Navarro. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 2-3:

Documentary Requirements

Visa Required. Most classes of nonimmigrants are required to obtain a visa to enter the United States. In these cases, foreign nationals must fill out an Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-160, or a Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-156. In addition, applicants aged 14 to 79 years are generally required to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate and be interviewed by a consular official. Possession of a valid visa does not guarantee admission. A CBP officer determines if the nonimmigrant may enter the United States and the authorized duration of stay.

Mexican Tourist and Business Admissions. Mexican nationals who meet the requirements for a B1/B2 visa (temporary visitor for business or pleasure), have a valid Mexican passport, demonstrate that they will return to Mexico upon completion of their stay, and reside in close proximity to the U.S./Mexico border may be eligible for a Border Crossing Card (BCC) or “laser visa.” The BCC is a machine-readable card that is valid for 10 years and contains fingerprint and other biometric data. Those who reside in the interior areas of Mexico are issued visas affixed to their passports.

To be admitted to the U.S.-Mexico border zone (up to 25 or 75 miles from the border, depending on the entry location) without a Form I–94 as a nonimmigrant visitor, a Mexican national must be in possession of a BCC or a passport and valid visa, or for a Mexican national who is a member of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians or Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, a Form I–872 American Indian Card. Generally, Mexican nationals are required to present a BCC or a valid passport with a valid nonimmigrant visa, unless exempt. Mexican nationals with BCCs or Form I-872 are generally authorized to travel within the border zone for up to 30 days at a time without having to obtain a Form I–94. Also, Mexicans entering the United States with a passport and visa may remain in the border zone for up to 72 hours without having to obtain an I–94. However, Mexican nationals traveling beyond these specified zones, who will remain beyond the time periods indicated above, or who seek entry for purposes other than as a temporary visitor for business or pleasure, are required to obtain and complete a Form I–94.

Canadian Tourist and Business Admissions. Canadian short-term business and tourist visitors to the United States are required to possess a valid Canadian passport or other Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-approved form of identification,5 but they generally are not required to obtain a visa or apply for travel authorization through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals of designated countries to travel to the United States as tourists or business travelers without a visa for periods not to exceed 90 days. Qualified nationals of VWP countries must be admissible to the United States and not have violated the terms of any previous admission under the VWP; possess a valid machine-readable passport; travel on an approved carrier and possess a round trip ticket if arriving by air or sea; obtain travel authorization through ESTA; and waive their right to contest an immigration officer’s determination of admissibility and the right to contest removal, other than on the basis of an application for asylum. Nationals of VWP countries must obtain a visa if they are traveling to the United States for a purpose other than tourism or business or if their stay will exceed 90 days.

Waiver Program (GCVWP) permits nationals of designated countries and geographic areas to be admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) without a visa. Admissions under the GCVWP may not exceed 45 days in Guam and/or CNMI. In 2014, Australia, Brunei, Hong Kong,6 Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom participated in the GCVWP.7

6 Eligibility for Hong Kong includes citizens of the former colony of Hong Kong who are in possession of the United Kingdom passport that states “British National Overseas” or holders of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) travel document. Both of these travel documents must be in conjunction with a Hong Kong Identification Card.

7 On November 28, 2009, the GCVWP replaced the Guam Visa Waiver Program (GVWP) which permitted nationals of participating countries to be admitted to Guam without a visa. Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, South Korea, Singapore, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Vanuatu were included in the GVWP when it ended.

Page ii: “Legal temporary resident or visitor: A noncitizen of the United States who is admitted to the country with a temporary visa or who is allowed to enter without a visa. People in those categories include visitors who are in the United States for short periods and temporary residents who are in the United States for longer, although time-limited, stays.”

Page 1: “Noncitizens include … legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time….”

[47] Webpage: “Directory of Visa Categories.” U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. Accessed April 26, 2017 at <travel.state.gov>

The purpose of your intended travel and other facts will determine what type of visa is required under U.S. immigration law. As a visa applicant, you will need to establish that you meet all requirements to receive the category of visa for which you are applying. When you apply at a U.S embassy or consulate, a consular officer will determine based on laws, whether you are eligible to receive a visa, and if so, which visa category is appropriate.

The chart below contains many different purposes of temporary travel and the related nonimmigrant visa categories available on this website. Select a visa category below to learn more:

Purpose of Travel

Visa Category

Athlete, amateur or professional (competing for prize money only)

B-1

Au pair (exchange visitor)

J

Australian professional specialty

E-3

Border Crossing Card: Mexico

BCC

Business visitor

B-1

CNMI-only transitional worker

CW-1

Crewmember

D

Diplomat or foreign government official

A

Domestic employee or nanny—must be accompanying a foreign national employer

B-1

Employee of a designated international organization or NATO

G1-G5, NATO

Exchange visitor

J

Foreign military personnel stationed in the United States

A-2

NATO1-6

Foreign national with extraordinary ability in Sciences, Arts, Education, Business or Athletics

Temporary Worker – An alien coming to the United States to work for a temporary period of time. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990, as well as other legislation, revised existing classes and created new classes of nonimmigrant admission. Nonimmigrant temporary worker classes of admission are as follows:

1. H-1A-registered nurses (valid from 10/1/1990 through 9/30/1995);

2. H-1B-workers with “specialty occupations” admitted on the basis of professional education, skills, and/or equivalent experience;

3. H-1C-registered nurses to work in areas with a shortage of health professionals under the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999;

4. H-2A-temporary agricultural workers coming to the United States to perform agricultural services or labor of a temporary or seasonal nature when authorized workers are unavailable in the United States;

5. H-2B-temporary non-agricultural workers coming to the United States to perform temporary services or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing the service or labor cannot be found in the United States;

6. H-3-aliens coming temporarily to the United States as trainees, other than to receive graduate medical education or training;

7. O-1, O-2, O-3-temporary workers with extraordinary ability or achievement in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; those entering solely for the purpose of accompanying and assisting such workers; and their spouses and children;

8. P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4-athletes and entertainers at an internationally recognized level of performance; artists and entertainers under a reciprocal exchange program; artists and entertainers under a program that is “culturally unique”; and their spouses and children;

9. Q-1, Q-2, Q-3-participants in international cultural exchange programs; participants in the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program; and spouses and children of Irish Peace Process participants;

10. R-1, R-2-temporary workers to perform work in religious occupations and their spouses and children.

See other sections of this Glossary for definitions of Exchange Visitor, Intracompany Transferee, and U.S.-Canada or North American Free-Trade Agreement classes of nonimmigrant admission.

The Census Bureau’s mission is to serve as the leading source of quality data about the nation’s people and economy. We honor privacy, protect confidentiality, share our expertise globally, and conduct our work openly. …

Much of the information on immigration in this document comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau. … Among other questions, respondents are asked where they and their parents were born. Those who were born in another country are asked when they came to the United States to stay and whether they have become citizens by naturalization.

Much of the information on immigration in this document comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau. … Among other questions, respondents are asked where they and their parents were born. Those who were born in another country are asked when they came to the United States to stay and whether they have become citizens by naturalization. All information is reported by respondents and is not validated against other sources. No one is asked about legal immigration status.

Page 70: “However, immigration-related questions are no longer asked of every household. Rather, they make up a small section of the long form, which is distributed randomly to one of about every six households.”

Page 71:

The long form of the 2010 census, or the American Community Survey, contained the following questions geared specifically to immigration:

• Where was this person born?

• Is this person a citizen of the United States?

• When did this person come to live in the United States?

• What was this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

• Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

• If yes … what is this language?

• If yes . . . how well does this person speak English?

[53] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

The decennial census and monthly household surveys of the Census Bureau include questions on place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States. These data provide a wealth of information on the total foreign-born population, naturalized citizens, and non-citizens. However, national population data on the major sub-categories of non-citizens, including LPRs [lawful permanent residents], students, temporary workers, and unauthorized immigrants, are not readily available from any source and must be estimated. An alien registration program requiring all legally resident aliens to report their status annually to the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service was discontinued by Congress in 1981. Immigration data collected by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] measure administrative events such as the number of aliens granted lawful permanent residence or the number approved for asylum, but not the population of legal permanent residents or the population of asylees living in the United States at a point in time.

Page 70: “However, immigration-related questions are no longer asked of every household. Rather, they make up a small section of the long form, which is distributed randomly to one of about every six households.”

Page 71:

The long form of the 2010 census, or the American Community Survey, contained the following questions geared specifically to immigration:

• Where was this person born?

• Is this person a citizen of the United States?

• When did this person come to live in the United States?

• What was this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

• Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

• If yes … what is this language?

• If yes . . . how well does this person speak English? …

The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses. Many speak English poorly and may be illiterate as well, so they have trouble filling out the forms.

Because the census has been distributed by mail since 1960, it depends on accurate address lists. Yet postal lists may have trouble picking up immigrants, who may be more likely to be living with other family members, in makeshift apartments, or in other hard-to-find places. Migrant farmworkers, many of them from Mexico, are particularly hard to track. While enumerators follow up nonresponses with personal visits, the immigrant population remains hard to find. …

To overcome these difficulties, the Census Bureau has formed partnerships with many organizations and churches in the immigrant community to encourage responses to the census. In 2010, the Census Bureau offered forms in roughly fifty languages.

Another obstacle to collecting accurate data is the difficulty of measuring emigration from the United States by those born abroad. The Census Bureau estimated the level of foreign-born emigration at 195,000 annually in the 1980s by subtracting actual counts of the foreign born from an estimated population. But no one directly measures who leaves the country.

A truly complete portrait of the immigrant population requires more questions than the census can ask. Questions about sensitive matters such as legal status no longer appear on the census form.

[55] Presentation: “Data on the Foreign-Born Population Published by the U.S. Census Bureau.” By Elizabeth M. Grieco. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, April 18, 2013. <www2.census.gov>

Page 3: “The Census Bureau does not collect data by legal status, other than naturalized citizen/noncitizen.”

[56] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 2: “Most observers agree that a sizable number of LPRs [lawful permanent residents] emigrate from the United States. The U.S. government has not collected official statistics since 1957. National data that directly measure emigration do not exist.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has estimated that, in 2009, about 10.8 million U.S. residents were in the country without legal authorization—about 2.3 million more than in 2000. DHS arrived at its estimate by calculating the difference between the total foreign-born population and the authorized foreign-born population. The numbers that form the basis of DHS’s estimate came from a variety of sources, and they involved various assumptions. Moreover, because they do not reflect actual population counts, the resulting estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty. (The Pew Hispanic Center has issued a slightly different estimate of the unauthorized population in 2009— about 11.1 million people.)

[58] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Pages 2-3:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). Of this number, about 10.8 million resided in the U.S. in an unauthorized status. The remaining other immigrants resided in the U.S. in a temporary authorized status (for example students and workers with temporary visas).

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN. Combining these two groups with the 1.3 million current visa holders with temporary authorization, we estimate 2.7 million other immigrants have SSNs in their name and thus can work, pay taxes, and have earnings credited to their record for potential benefits in the future.

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. Their earnings may be credited to someone else’s record (when the SSN and name submitted to the employer match Social Security records) or may be credited to the Earnings Suspense File (when submitted with non-matching SSN and name). Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

Eliminating the current visa holders with temporary authorization (1.3 million other immigrants with legal work authorization), and those in the underground economy (3.9 million unauthorized workers), we estimate that there are about 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants working and paying Social Security taxes in 2010.

California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon made the claims during testimony before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee for SB54, a bill introduced by De Leon that would create a statewide sanctuary for immigrants living in the country illegally.

Responding to President Trump’s suggestion of “withholding federal funding” from California, de Leon said: “Half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because they got a false social security card, they got a false identification, they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB 60, they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”

[60] Book: Appeal to Popular Opinion. By Douglas N. Walton. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.

Page 258:

Scientific polls use sampling procedures where random samples are used, that is, where each individual in the group has an equal chance of being selected into the sample, or where some variation on this pattern is used to account for variations in the population that need to be reflected in the sample (Campbell 1974). Scientific popular-opinion polls also compute numerical margins of error indicating the extent to which results can be expected to vary.

A good sample will be as free from bias as possible. Selection bias occurs when some part of the target population, or, more generally, when some population units are sampled at a different rate than intended by the investigator … A sample of convenience is often biased, since the units that are easiest to select or that are most likely to respond or usually not representative of the harder-to-select or non-responding units.

Page 6:

Nonresponse distorts the results of many surveys, even sources that are carefully designed to minimize other sources of selection bias. Often, nonrespondents differ critically from the respondents, but the extent of that difference is unknown unless you can later obtain information about the nonrespondents.

Page 71: “The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses.”

For estimating the size of the unauthorized population, the Department of Homeland Security has assumed that the ACS’s [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey] undercount rates range from 2.5 percent for noncitizens who are legal permanent residents, refugees, or have been granted asylum to 10 percent for noncitizens without authorization to be in the United States. Those estimates suggest that the ACS and CPS [Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey] undercount the overall foreign-born population by about 5 percent.

[64] Paper: “How Well Does the American Community Survey Count Naturalized Citizens?” By Jennifer Van Hooka and James D. Bachmeierb. Demographic Research, July 2, 2013. <www.demographic-research.org>

Page 2: “In the United States, data on naturalization and citizenship largely come from Census Bureau surveys, such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the long form of the decennial Census (2000 and earlier), and the American Community Survey (ACS).”

Page 3:

There are good reasons to suspect that citizenship is inaccurately estimated in Census data. During the late 1990s, Passel and Clark (1997) compared the number of persons that are reported as naturalized in the 1990 Census and the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) with the number of naturalized citizens based on administrative data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They found the Census/CPS estimates to be much higher than the INS-based estimates for two groups. Among new arrivals (those in the U.S. fewer than five years) from all national origins, about 75% of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Among longer-resident Mexican and Central American immigrants, about one-third of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not.

Page 5:

To assess the current level of citizenship reporting error, we estimated the number of naturalized citizens in mid-year 2010 by age group, sex, region of origin, and duration of residence based on the number of Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) naturalization records. We then compared the OIS-based estimates with the corresponding numbers in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (also a mid-year estimate). The difference between the two provides an indication of over- or under-representation of naturalized citizenship in the ACS.

Page 17:

Table 2 reports the naturalization estimates by sex, region of birth, and duration of U.S. residence. For both men and women from all origin regions, the estimated number of naturalized citizens in the ACS is substantially and significantly higher than the OIS-based estimates among immigrants with fewer than five years in the U.S. For example, the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher (2587%) in the ACS than the OIS estimates. Another way to express this is that among the 16 thousand reporting as citizens in the ACS, only about 600 (or about 4 percent) are likely to actually be naturalized citizens. Among those in the U.S. for five or more years, the OIS-ACS gap is much lower in relative terms, and concentrated among Mexican men.

Page 19:

In Table 3, OIS and ACS estimates are presented for Mexican and non-Mexican men and women by age group by varying rates of emigration. We note that the OIS estimates do not always decline as emigration increases from the “low” to the “moderate” to the “high” series because of age crossovers in various emigration estimates. Regardless of assumptions about emigration, ACS estimates are especially high relative to the OIS-based estimates among Mexican men of all age groups and Mexican women aged 40 and older. The same pattern does not hold among non-Mexicans, among whom the discrepancy remains relatively low across all age groups.

[65] Dataset: “2016 Population by Detailed Nativity.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 1, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“Non-Native [=] 43,070,000”

[66] Presentation: “Data on the Foreign-Born Population Published by the U.S. Census Bureau.” By Elizabeth M. Grieco. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, April 18, 2013. <www2.census.gov>

Page 3:

Native born – Anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth

The native population includes anyone born in the United States, born in Puerto Rico or a U.S. Island Area (e.g., Guam), and born abroad of a U.S. citizen parent or parents.

[68] Dataset: “2016 Population by Detailed Nativity.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 1, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“Non-Native [=] 13.5%”

[69] Calculated with data from the presentation: “Data on the Foreign-Born Population Published by the U.S. Census Bureau.” By Elizabeth M. Grieco. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, April 18, 2013. <www2.census.gov>

Page 4: “Foreign-Born Population and Percentage of Total Population, for the United States: 1850 to 2010”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[70] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Total:

43,289,646

±122,375

100%

Latin America

22,111,409

±88,225

51%

Asia

13,249,179

±52,482

31%

Europe

4,789,662

±38,942

11%

Africa

2,062,257

±42,104

5%

North America

838,476

±17,172

2%

Oceania

238,663

±9,099

1%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[71] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

11,643,298

±77,644

27%

India

2,389,639

±31,113

6%

China

2,065,431

±33,869

5%

Philippines

1,982,369

±30,007

5%

El Salvador

1,352,357

±31,379

3%

Vietnam

1,300,515

±27,733

3%

Cuba

1,210,674

±23,840

3%

Dom. Rep.

1,063,239

±28,770

2%

Korea

1,060,019

±20,054

2%

Guatemala

927,593

±23,812

2%

Total of Top 10 †

24,995,134

58%

Canada

830,628

±17,129

2%

Jamaica

711,134

±19,231

2%

Colombia

699,399

±20,772

2%

United Kingdom

683,473

±13,753

2%

Haiti

675,546

±22,289

2%

Honduras

599,030

±25,695

1%

Germany

585,298

±12,124

1%

Peru

445,921

±17,981

1%

Ecuador

441,257

±19,017

1%

Poland

419,332

±12,547

1%

Iran

394,223

±14,189

1%

Russia

386,529

±13,859

1%

Pakistan

379,435

±17,427

1%

Taiwan

377,893

±12,637

1%

Brazil

361,374

±15,675

1%

Italy

352,492

±11,766

1%

Ukraine

345,620

±11,934

1%

Japan

335,767

±11,198

1%

Nigeria

323,635

±18,271

1%

Guyana

281,408

±12,349

1%

Nicaragua

256,171

±12,391

1%

Venezuela

255,520

±13,320

1%

Thailand

247,205

±10,349

1%

Hong Kong

233,373

±7,808

1%

Ethiopia

228,745

±13,680

1%

Bangladesh

228,682

±14,479

1%

Trinidad and Tobago

227,295

±8,816

1%

All Others †

6,001,942

14%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[72] Article: “From Germany to Mexico: How America’s Source of Immigrants Has Changed Over a Century.” By Jens Manuel Krogstad and Michael Keegan. Pew Research, October 7, 2015. <www.pewresearch.org>

Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 1965, making the nation the top destination in the world for those moving from one country to another. Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.

… A century ago, the U.S. experienced another large wave of 18.2 million immigrants, hailing largely from Europe. Many Americans can trace their roots to that wave, from 1890 to 1919, when Germany dominated as the country sending the most immigrants to many of the U.S. states, although the United Kingdom, Canada and Italy were also strongly represented. …

Since 1965, when Congress passed legislation to open the nation’s borders, immigrants have largely hailed from Latin America and Asia.

This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.

Interview selection was within predetermined census units of Hispanic adults. 560 interviews were conducted via landline telephone by professional interviewers. To increase coverage, this landline sample was supplemented with 240 interviews, 30%, conducted via internet of cellphone only users. 64% of all respondents use cell phones. 60% of all interviews were conducted in Spanish. 93% of all respondents speak at least some Spanish at home. These samples were then combined and structured to correlate with actual adult Hispanic census population.

This poll of 800 Hispanic adults has an accuracy of ± 3.4% at a 95% confidence interval. Within the sample, 470 of the Hispanic adults are also registered voters. For this subsample the accuracy is ± 4.5% at a 95% confidence interval.

Page 4:

The uniqueness of this poll is that it is very strong demographically and methodologically. 60% of the interviews were actually conducted in Spanish; 76% speak Spanish mostly or equally. 23% always speak Spanish; 93% speak at least some Spanish at home; 30% of the interviews were conducted among cell phone only users. 64% of Hispanic adults have cell phones.

The liberalization of immigration policy following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America. In the 1960s, the traditional dominance of European immigration began to decline. By the 1980s, only 11 percent of the total immigration came from Europe, whereas in 1900 they made up 90 percent of total immigration (Ueda 1998). After this reversal, the majority of immigrants coming to the United States were from Asia and Latin America. Whereas immigrants before the Great Depression were almost entirely working-class, all the immigrants of the 1970s through the 1990s can be divided into two economic classes, either highly skilled or poorly skilled. Many post-1965 immigrants were highly educated and trained workers. In the 1970s, 25 percent of immigrants were professionals and often more than 40 percent were white-collar workers. This trend continued into the 1980s. From 1976 to 1990, more than 35 percent of employed immigrants were in professional and other white-collar jobs, and an additional 12 percent were in skilled crafts (Ueda 1998).

This human capital migration was counteracted by a large group of low-skilled workers. Service workers, laborers, and semiskilled operatives composed about 46 percent of employed immigrants in this same time period. The flow of the low-skilled and under-educated immigrants rose in numbers and in percentages in the 1980s and 1990s. Hispanic, Asian, and West Indian workers moved into the service and semi-skilled job markets in large cities like Los Angeles and New York, causing increasing friction and conflict with native black workers (Ueda 1998).

Foreign-born people represent a substantial fraction of the population in some states. In 2012, about 1 in 4 people in California and about 1 in 5 people in New York and in New Jersey were born in another country. However, in another 31 states, taken together, only about 1 person in 20 was foreign born. Between 1999 and 2012, the share of the population constituted by foreign-born people increased in all but two states and, for the nation as a whole, rose by 2.8 percentage points, to roughly 13 percent.

Frey (1996) focuses on the demographic and economic “balkanization” patterns occurring with post-1965 immigrant groups. Largely the result of de facto as well as self-imposed segregation patterns, new immigrants and ethnic groups have become segregated across neighborhoods or between central cities and suburbs. Recent trends see the emergence of entire metropolitan areas or labor market regions that are distinct from the rest of the country in their race, ethnic, and demographic composition. The notion of self-imposed segregation as it relates to immigrant enclaves speaks to an urban model in which ethnic enclaves or neighborhoods in cities can also serve relatively impoverished new arrivals for a period of time and then later provide a base for spatial assimilation and entry into integrated suburban areas (Logan et al. 2002).

In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer.

The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms, and the range of competency or readiness levels within every subject will expand. Yet many teachers are still operating as if diverse backgrounds and readiness levels had no relation to learner success.

[81] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 2, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[82] Calculated with data from the report: “2015 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the combined federal and nonfederal CLF [civilian labor force], 65 percent of the Hispanics were U.S. citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites, 65 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and 96 percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans.

[86] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “[N]ational population data on the major sub-categories of non-citizens, including LPRs [lawful permanent residents], students, temporary workers, and unauthorized immigrants, are not readily available from any source and must be estimated.”

[87] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 2, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the combined federal and nonfederal CLF [civilian labor force], 65 percent of the Hispanics were U.S. citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites, 65 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and 96 percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans.

[91] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents estimates of the lawful permanent resident (LPR) population living in the United States on January 1, 2013. LPRs, also known as “green card” holders, are immigrants who have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States but have not yet become U.S. citizens. …

The LPR population estimates in this report were derived primarily from Census and DHS data by estimating a base population as of a certain date and adding subsequent components of population change (see Passel and Clark, 1998; Hoefer, 1996). A variant of this approach has been used by DHS since 2002 to estimate the resident LPR population.

Page 3:

An estimated 13.1 million lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were living in the United States on January 1, 2013 (see Table 1). Of the total 13.1 million, an estimated 8.8 million were eligible to naturalize. Over the long term, the size of the LPR population changes slowly because increases in the number of persons becoming LPRs each year are offset by persons naturalizing. During the five-year period 2008 to 2013, the LPR population and LPR population eligible to naturalize increased by less than one million.

[92] Calculated with data from the previous footnote and the dataset: “2003-2016 Population by Detailed Nativity.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed October 15, 2016 at <www.census.gov>

“Population [=] 311,116,000 … Native [=] 271,010,000”

CALCULATION: 13,100,000 / 311,116,000 = 4.2%

[93] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents estimates of the lawful permanent resident (LPR) population living in the United States on January 1, 2013. LPRs, also known as “green card” holders, are immigrants who have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States but have not yet become U.S. citizens. …

The LPR population estimates in this report were derived primarily from Census and DHS data by estimating a base population as of a certain date and adding subsequent components of population change (see Passel and Clark, 1998; Hoefer, 1996). A variant of this approach has been used by DHS since 2002 to estimate the resident LPR population.

Page 3:

An estimated 13.1 million lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were living in the United States on January 1, 2013 (see Table 1). Of the total 13.1 million, an estimated 8.8 million were eligible to naturalize. Over the long term, the size of the LPR population changes slowly because increases in the number of persons becoming LPRs each year are offset by persons naturalizing. During the five-year period 2008 to 2013, the LPR population and LPR population eligible to naturalize increased by less than one million. …

Mexico was the leading country of origin of the LPR population in 2013 (see Table 4). An estimated 3.3 million or 25 percent of LPRs came from Mexico. The next leading source countries were China (0.7 million) and the Philippines (0.6 million), followed by India (0.5 million) and the Dominican Republic (0.5 million). Forty-two percent of LPRs in 2013 were born in one of these five countries. The 10 leading countries of origin, which also include Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Canada, and the United Kingdom, represented 55 percent of the LPR population.

CALCULATION: 8.8 million / 13.1 million = 67%

[94] Calculated with data from the report: “2015 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

From 2000 to 2012, more than 13 million people were granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the United States, an average of about 1 million per year. Lawful permanent residents are permitted to live, work, and study in the United States, and receiving LPR status is an important milestone on the path to U.S. citizenship. Roughly two-thirds of new LPRs were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or were admitted under family-sponsored preferences.

Page 10 (of PDF):

Exhibit 6. Grants of Lawful Permanent Resident Status, by Time and Major Category of Admission, Fiscal Years 2004, 2009, and 2012

Note: In its latest publication on the topic, the Department of Homeland Security revised the values for the “Humanitarian” and “Employment-based preferences” categories for 2009, so the figures presented here differ from those presented in Congressional Budget Office, A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update (June 2011), <www.cbo.gov>.

a. Primarily consists of grants to refugees and asylum seekers.

b. The program grants legal permanent resident status to up to 50,000 people annually who are randomly selected from all applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States and who meet strict eligibility requirements. See Congressional Budget Office, Immigration Policy in the United States: An Update (December 2010), <www.cbo.gov>.

[98] Paper: “A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census.” By Robert Warren and Jeffrey S. Passel. Demography, August 1987. Pages 375-393. <www.jstor.org>

Page 375:

During the past few decades, significant changes in the level and sources of immigration have led to the reemergence of immigration as a topic of national concern in the United States. In the 1960s, major events in foreign policy and changes in U.S. law set the stage for a renewal of public awareness about international migration to the United States. Hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from Cuba in the 1960s and from Vietnam after 1975. Following passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, the level of legal immigration increased steadily and Latin America and Asia supplanted Europe as the major source of immigrants [Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 1983]. A suspected increase in undocumented immigrants in recent years has focused attention on the level and impact of immigration, both documented and undocumented, and has led to the passage of new legislation in 1986.

Figures on the size of the undocumented alien population in the country have varied widely, with speculative estimates as high as 12 million (Siegel, Passel. and Robinson, 1980). Much of the conjecture about undocumented immigration during the past 15 years has been based on the rapid increase in the number of apprehensions of deportable aliens, mostly from Mexico, following termination of the Bracero program in 1964. Apprehensions reached 500,000 in 1972, leveled off at about 1 million annually by the end of the 1970s, and increased again in the mid-1980s. These increases were interpreted as evidence of a rapidly growing undocumented population by officials of the INS and others during the 1970s. (For a different interpretation, see Passel, 1985a.) Much of the ensuing numbers debate was unhampered by any other empirical evidence.

Empirically based estimates of undocumented immigrants have been consistently lower than most of the speculative estimates (Garcia y Griego and Estrada, 1981). Recent work using data from the 1980 census of Mexico (Bean, King. and Passel, 1983) placed an upper bound of 4 million on the number of undocumented Mexicans in the United States at that date and suggested that the actual number was probably much smaller. Although the research reported here does not directly address the question of the total number of undocumented aliens in the country, it does help set limits; estimates of the number counted in the census provide a firm empirical basis for setting a lower bound on the total in the country as of 1980. The estimates presented in this paper, along with the results of other studies (Panel on Immigration Statistics, 1985; Passel, 1985a), suggest that the undocumented Mexican population in 1980 was in the 1–2 million range, with the total number from all countries falling in the range of 2–4 million.

Page 3: “The unauthorized immigrant population grew from 2–4 million in 1980 (Warren and Passel, 1987) to 8.5 million in 2000 and 11.6 million in 2010 (see Figure 1).”

Page 1: “Nearly 2.7 million persons became LPRs [lawful permanent residents] under IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act], including 1.6 million pre-1982s and 1.1 million SAWs [special agricultural workers].”

[100] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in

the United States: 1990 to 2000.” By Robert Warren. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning, 2003. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This paper describes estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000, by State of residence and country of origin. The estimates were developed using data on the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census, INS administrative data, and a new methodology for estimating annual trends in population growth. It is the third in a series of estimates developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The INS estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000 was 7.0 million. The total population estimates presented here are somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimates. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated that the population was 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. …

In 1994, the INS developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992, and that the population was growing at an average annual rate of 300,000. Updated figures for October 1996, released in February 1997, estimated the total population to be 5.0 million and growing at an average annual rate of 275,000.

Pages 2-4:

INS estimates for January 2000 were derived using the residual technique: the legally resident population was estimated and then subtracted from the census-based foreign-born population, leaving estimated unauthorized residents as a residual. The estimates rely primarily on data from two sources: 1) annual INS statistics (immigrants admitted, deportable aliens removed, and nonimmigrant residents admitted); and 2) data for the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census. Questions on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration were asked on the “long form,” which was used to collect detailed information from approximately one-sixth of the total U.S. population in the 2000 Census.

The primary reason that the total population estimate shown here is higher than INS’ earlier total is that the new estimate for Mexico is about 1.2 million higher than the previous estimate (for the comparable date, October 1996). The increase in the estimate for Mexico occurred because the new estimate for Mexico is based on data collected in the 2000 Census rather than survey data, which was used previously to estimate the unauthorized resident population from Mexico. Census data are more complete and reliable because of the national scope of the data collection, the vastly larger sample size, and the extensive preparation and follow-up activities involved in conducting the decennial census. For all countries excluding Mexico, the new estimate is 0.4 million lower than the previous estimate for the comparable date. …

Summary of Methodology

Estimates for January 2000

The first step was to estimate the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States in January 2000. Estimates were derived separately for: (1) unauthorized residents who entered the United States in the 1990s; and (2) those who entered before 1990 and still lived here illegally in January 2000.

1. For unauthorized residents who entered in the 1990s and resided illegally in the United States in January 2000, estimates were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The difference is the number of unauthorized residents, as of January 2000, who entered in the 1990s.

About 12.6 million foreign-born persons who entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 were counted in the 2000 Census. The INS adjusted that number upward by about 850,000, primarily to account for estimated undercount in the census,4 yielding a total foreign-born population of nearly 13.5 million who entered from 1990 to 1999.5 The INS estimates that 8.0 million of the 13.5 million foreign-born residents who moved to the United States in the 1990s were in a legal status. The difference, 5.5 million, is the estimated unauthorized population that entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 and resided here in January 2000 (Table 3).

2. For unauthorized residents who moved here before 1990 and still resided here illegally in January 2000, the estimates are based on the estimated population that resided illegally in the United States in January 1990, reduced by the number that left the population in the 1990s. The INS estimates that 3.5 million unauthorized residents were living in the United States in January 1990. Of those, nearly 2 million left the unauthorized resident population in the 1990s.6 Thus, an estimated 1.5 million who entered before January 1990 were still residing illegally in the United States in January 2000 (Table 3).

Combining the estimates in paragraphs 1 and 2 above yields a total of 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States in January 2000. The figures shown above are for the entire U.S. foreign-born population; comparable estimates were derived for all States and for 75 source countries of unauthorized immigration.

Pages 5-6:

Limitations of the data

As described above, the estimates of unauthorized residents were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The figures used here for the total foreign-born population are relatively straightforward: they are 2000 Census counts of the foreign-born population, adjusted for estimated undercount. Estimating the legally resident population was considerably more complex. In addition to those admitted for lawful permanent residence and refugee arrivals, it was necessary to make reliable estimates for a number of difficult-to-estimate populations. Detailed estimates were made for:

• nonimmigrant residents (temporary workers, students, etc.);

• unauthorized residents who have pending, and likely to be approved, applications for LPR status in the INS processing backlog;

• asylees and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and

• aliens, mostly from Central American countries, who otherwise would be unauthorized residents but are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings.

All of these groups have been included in the legally resident population used to derive the estimates shown here; the total for these groups is nearly 2.1 million (Table 3, rows 16-18). Failure to fully account for these groups would cause a significant overestimate of the unauthorized resident population (see later section, “Comparison with recent estimates”).

It should be noted that net internal migration (moves from State to State) of lawful residents after admission could affect the accuracy of the estimates of unauthorized immigration for States. For example, if relatively more lawful residents (who arrived in the 1990s) moved out of California than moved into California in the 1990s, then INS’ estimate of lawful residents in California in 2000 would be too high.7 Consequently, the unauthorized resident population in California would be underestimated.

The effects of net internal migration of lawful residents might be relatively small because: 1) the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing the probability of subsequent out-of-State moves; and 2) a majority of the lawfully resident population already had a residence in the United States at the time they entered the INS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. The estimated unauthorized resident population in each State would be unaffected by net internal migration of lawful residents who moved to the United States before 1990.

The 2000 Census data for the foreign-born population are based on a sample of the population, and therefore the annual estimates of the unauthorized resident population in January 2000 are subject to sampling variability.8 Also, the estimates for some components of the population, primarily the estimated emigration rates and the size of the resident nonimmigrant population, are subject to other kinds of error. Thus, relatively small year-to-year differences should be disregarded, and the actual trends might be somewhat higher or lower than those shown here.

Page 10:

Table C. Annual Estimates of Population and Net Change of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000

The new estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, using the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by the center for many years.1 The estimates of the total population, as well as regarding the share of unauthorized immigrants with U.S. citizen children and length of residence in the U.S., update previously published estimates.

Page 14:

Table A1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by Age and Duration of Residence in the U.S., and Their U.S.-Born Children, 1995-2013

The estimates presented in this report for the unauthorized immigrant population are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey—either the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS); the difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that is later adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:

First, all immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980 are assumed to be legal immigrants. Then, the data are corrected for known over-reporting of naturalized citizenship on the part of recently arrived immigrants (Passel et al. 1997) and all remaining naturalized citizens from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America are assigned as legal. … Finally, some individuals are assigned as legal immigrants because they are in certain occupations (e.g., police officer, lawyer, military occupation, federal job) that require legal status or because they are receiving public benefits (e.g., welfare or food stamps) that are limited to legal immigrants. As result of these steps, the foreign-born population is divided between individuals with “definitely legal” status (including long-term residents, naturalized citizens, refugees and asylees, legal temporary migrants, and some legal permanent residents) and a group of “potentially unauthorized” migrants.

The number of potentially unauthorized migrants typically exceeds the estimated number of unauthorized migrants (from the residual estimates) by 15-35%. So, to have a result consistent with the residual estimate of legal and unauthorized immigrants, probabilistic methods are employed to assign legal or unauthorized status to these potentially unauthorized individuals. This last step also involves a check to ensure that the legal statuses of family members are consistent; for example, all family members entering the country at the same time are assumed to have the same legal status.

[102] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in

the United States: 1990 to 2000.” By Robert Warren. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning, 2003. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This paper describes estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000, by State of residence and country of origin. The estimates were developed using data on the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census, INS administrative data, and a new methodology for estimating annual trends in population growth. It is the third in a series of estimates developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The INS estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000 was 7.0 million. The total population estimates presented here are somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimates. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated that the population was 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. …

In 1994, the INS developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992, and that the population was growing at an average annual rate of 300,000. Updated figures for October 1996, released in February 1997, estimated the total population to be 5.0 million and growing at an average annual rate of 275,000.

Pages 2-4:

INS estimates for January 2000 were derived using the residual technique: the legally resident population was estimated and then subtracted from the census-based foreign-born population, leaving estimated unauthorized residents as a residual. The estimates rely primarily on data from two sources: 1) annual INS statistics (immigrants admitted, deportable aliens removed, and nonimmigrant residents admitted); and 2) data for the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census. Questions on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration were asked on the “long form,” which was used to collect detailed information from approximately one-sixth of the total U.S. population in the 2000 Census.

The primary reason that the total population estimate shown here is higher than INS’ earlier total is that the new estimate for Mexico is about 1.2 million higher than the previous estimate (for the comparable date, October 1996). The increase in the estimate for Mexico occurred because the new estimate for Mexico is based on data collected in the 2000 Census rather than survey data, which was used previously to estimate the unauthorized resident population from Mexico. Census data are more complete and reliable because of the national scope of the data collection, the vastly larger sample size, and the extensive preparation and follow-up activities involved in conducting the decennial census. For all countries excluding Mexico, the new estimate is 0.4 million lower than the previous estimate for the comparable date. …

Summary of Methodology

Estimates for January 2000

The first step was to estimate the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States in January 2000. Estimates were derived separately for: (1) unauthorized residents who entered the United States in the 1990s; and (2) those who entered before 1990 and still lived here illegally in January 2000.

1. For unauthorized residents who entered in the 1990s and resided illegally in the United States in January 2000, estimates were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The difference is the number of unauthorized residents, as of January 2000, who entered in the 1990s.

About 12.6 million foreign-born persons who entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 were counted in the 2000 Census. The INS adjusted that number upward by about 850,000, primarily to account for estimated undercount in the census,4 yielding a total foreign-born population of nearly 13.5 million who entered from 1990 to 1999.5 The INS estimates that 8.0 million of the 13.5 million foreign-born residents who moved to the United States in the 1990s were in a legal status. The difference, 5.5 million, is the estimated unauthorized population that entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 and resided here in January 2000 (Table 3).

2. For unauthorized residents who moved here before 1990 and still resided here illegally in January 2000, the estimates are based on the estimated population that resided illegally in the United States in January 1990, reduced by the number that left the population in the 1990s. The INS estimates that 3.5 million unauthorized residents were living in the United States in January 1990. Of those, nearly 2 million left the unauthorized resident population in the 1990s.6 Thus, an estimated 1.5 million who entered before January 1990 were still residing illegally in the United States in January 2000 (Table 3).

Combining the estimates in paragraphs 1 and 2 above yields a total of 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States in January 2000. The figures shown above are for the entire U.S. foreign-born population; comparable estimates were derived for all States and for 75 source countries of unauthorized immigration.

Pages 5-6:

Limitations of the data

As described above, the estimates of unauthorized residents were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The figures used here for the total foreign-born population are relatively straightforward: they are 2000 Census counts of the foreign-born population, adjusted for estimated undercount. Estimating the legally resident population was considerably more complex. In addition to those admitted for lawful permanent residence and refugee arrivals, it was necessary to make reliable estimates for a number of difficult-to-estimate populations. Detailed estimates were made for:

• nonimmigrant residents (temporary workers, students, etc.);

• unauthorized residents who have pending, and likely to be approved, applications for LPR status in the INS processing backlog;

• asylees and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and

• aliens, mostly from Central American countries, who otherwise would be unauthorized residents but are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings.

All of these groups have been included in the legally resident population used to derive the estimates shown here; the total for these groups is nearly 2.1 million (Table 3, rows 16-18). Failure to fully account for these groups would cause a significant overestimate of the unauthorized resident population (see later section, “Comparison with recent estimates”).

It should be noted that net internal migration (moves from State to State) of lawful residents after admission could affect the accuracy of the estimates of unauthorized immigration for States. For example, if relatively more lawful residents (who arrived in the 1990s) moved out of California than moved into California in the 1990s, then INS’ estimate of lawful residents in California in 2000 would be too high.7 Consequently, the unauthorized resident population in California would be underestimated.

The effects of net internal migration of lawful residents might be relatively small because: 1) the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing the probability of subsequent out-of-State moves; and 2) a majority of the lawfully resident population already had a residence in the United States at the time they entered the INS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. The estimated unauthorized resident population in each State would be unaffected by net internal migration of lawful residents who moved to the United States before 1990.

The 2000 Census data for the foreign-born population are based on a sample of the population, and therefore the annual estimates of the unauthorized resident population in January 2000 are subject to sampling variability.8 Also, the estimates for some components of the population, primarily the estimated emigration rates and the size of the resident nonimmigrant population, are subject to other kinds of error. Thus, relatively small year-to-year differences should be disregarded, and the actual trends might be somewhat higher or lower than those shown here.

Page 10:

Table C. Annual Estimates of Population and Net Change of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000

(In thousands. Parts might not add to totals because of rounding)

Year

Est. Unauth. Residents, January 1

2000

7,000

1999

6,488

1998

6,098

1997

5,862

1996

5,581

1995

5,146

1994

4,750

1993

4,492

1992

4,204

1991

4,025

1990

3,500

[103] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1-2:

This report provides estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2012 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. The estimates were obtained using the residual methodology employed for previous estimates of the unauthorized population (see Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2012). The unauthorized immigrant population is the remainder or residual after the legally resident foreign-born population—legal permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population. Data to estimate the legally resident population were obtained primarily from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau was the source for estimates of the total foreign-born population.

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later. Entrants since 2005 accounted for 14 percent of the total. Fifty-nine percent of unauthorized immigrants in 2012 were from Mexico. …

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are unauthorized until they have been granted lawful permanent residence, even though they may have been authorized to work. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—an estimated several hundred thousand—are not technically unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable in sufficient detail to estimate this population.

Methodology and Data

Two populations are estimated in order to derive the unauthorized population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2012 and 2) the legally resident population on the same date. The unauthorized population estimate is the residual when 2) is subtracted from 1). Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 were assumed to be legally resident since most were eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status.1 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. …

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable nonsampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation as indicated below. Caution is recommended in interpreting year-year changes in the size of the unauthorized population.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS and rates of emigration. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions that are made about these components (see Results).

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Concerns exist among immigration analysts regarding the validity and reliability of Census survey data on the year of entry question, “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for legally resident immigrants to year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates and length of visit by class of admission and country of citizenship and not actual population counts.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Unauthorized Immigration Population: 2000–2012

Year

Number (Millions)

2000

8.5 *

2005

10.5 *

2006

11.3 *

2007

11.8 *

2008

11.6 *

2009

10.8 *

2010

10.8 *, 11.6 †

2011

11.5 †

2012

11.4 †

* Based on the 2000 Census

† Based on the 2010 Census

… It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

The sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions about undercount and emigration is illustrated with several examples. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate from 10 percent to 20 percent increases the estimated unauthorized population in 2012 from 11.4 million to 12.9 million. By lowering or raising emigration rates 20 percent and holding all other assumptions constant, the estimated unauthorized immigrant population would range from 10.6 million to 12.3 million. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate and lowering or raising emigration rates by 20 percent would expand the range of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population from 11.9 to 13.8 million.

Page 1: “The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau.”

Page 6:

Based on several criteria, we believe that immigration is growing significantly faster than the consensus estimates:

1. Remittances

2. Housing permits in gateway communities

3. School enrollment

4. Cross border flows …

Many immigrants, particularly those with immediate families in their native country, provide financial support to those left behind. …

… . The rate of increase in remittances far exceeds the increases in Mexicans residing in the U.S. and their wage growth. Between 1995 and 2003, the official tally of Mexicans has climbed 56%, and median weekly wage has increased by 10%. Yet total remittances jumped 199% over the same period. Even considering the declining costs of money transfers, the growth of remittances remains astounding.

Pages 7-8:

The rapid addition of bank accounts by Mexicans living in the U.S. is also revealing. … Wells Fargo opens an average of 700 new accounts everyday based on this identification, representing the fastest growing segment for the bank. To date, around 2.5 million matriculas have been issued, and the number is growing. …

In major immigrant gateway cities, the influx of immigrants has led to overcrowded dwellings and a housing boom unexplained by official population growth. Many illegal immigrants, especially those who just arrive, reside in congested dwellings in cities, with the hope of finding jobs and upgrading to better living conditions later. These congested dwellings often house far more tenants than they are built for, and their landlords have no qualms about cramming in additional renters for a surcharge. Even so, new housing demand in these illegal immigrant enclaves outstrips those in other areas.

In New Jersey, the three gateway towns of New Brunswick, Elizabeth, and Newark exemplify this trend. According to the census, the combined population in these three towns between 1990 and 2003 grew only 5.6%, less than the 9% reported in the rest of the three corresponding counties. Yet housing permits in these three towns shot up over six-fold, while the rest of the three counties only saw a three-fold increase. More importantly, 80% of these permits were designated for multiple dwellings, so the corresponding increase in people accommodated are even greater. …

… The enrollment statistics for a sample of school districts that included Queens, New York, Elizabeth, Newark and New Brunswick, New Jersey and Wake County in North Carolina revealed explosive growth in immigrant students, far beyond numbers consistent with legal migration limits.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, “Border Apprehensions: 2005,” documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children. …

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of The Florida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared in MigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.

Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

While the Census Bureau makes a Herculean effort to get a complete count, it is virtually impossible to get an accurate count of populations who are resistant to being identified. …

… The most definitive conclusion is that determining the size of the population residing illegally in the U.S is subject to very large inaccuracies.

Page 226:

Households containing immigrants who are not legal residents have an incentive not to identify those members.

The Current Population Survey (CPS), which was the basis of the estimate of 11.1 million undocumented migrants reported in March of 2005, is in turn tied to the Census. … While the CPS is a well-constructed survey instrument for measuring employment/unemployment, the survey design is tied to Census data and the CPS also relies on the candor of respondents.

Page 229:

Given the nature of the problem—counting a population composed of individuals that have considerable incentive to be invisible to government authorities—it is probably impossible to know with a high level of precision the size of that population. Although the Census Bureau puts enormous effort into making a complete count, they can only be successful if there is a high level of co-operation from the population being counted. One thing that all sources agree on is that the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown rapidly since the early 1990s. There are indications that the official sources could be underestimating the size of this rapidly growing population.

Nancy Bolton is a demographic expert who developed and programmed the Population Estimation and Projection System for Los Angeles County; a system that produced estimates and projections of the population by age, sex and ethnicity for every census tract in the state. Bolton was the chief demographer for UCLA’s Business Forecast Project, where she produced research based articles for quarterly forecasts on demographic and economic issues. As a consultant to the Los Angeles County Urban Research Division, Bolton coordinated a study of the economic effects of illegal immigration on the county and developed an estimate of tax revenues generated by immigrants. The results were published in a watershed report, “The Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County.” Bolton also served as a consultant to the Southern California Association of Governments, where she developed the computer programs that processed state tax records and demographic estimates. Nancy Bolton has a PhD. in urban planning from the University of Southern California.

[107] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1-2:

This report provides estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2012 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. The estimates were obtained using the residual methodology employed for previous estimates of the unauthorized population (see Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2012). The unauthorized immigrant population is the remainder or residual after the legally resident foreign-born population—legal permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population. Data to estimate the legally resident population were obtained primarily from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau was the source for estimates of the total foreign-born population.

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later. Entrants since 2005 accounted for 14 percent of the total. Fifty-nine percent of unauthorized immigrants in 2012 were from Mexico. …

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are unauthorized until they have been granted lawful permanent residence, even though they may have been authorized to work. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—an estimated several hundred thousand—are not technically unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable in sufficient detail to estimate this population.

Methodology and Data

Two populations are estimated in order to derive the unauthorized population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2012 and 2) the legally resident population on the same date. The unauthorized population estimate is the residual when 2) is subtracted from 1). Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 were assumed to be legally resident since most were eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status.1 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. …

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable nonsampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation as indicated below. Caution is recommended in interpreting year-year changes in the size of the unauthorized population.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS and rates of emigration. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions that are made about these components (see Results).

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Concerns exist among immigration analysts regarding the validity and reliability of Census survey data on the year of entry question, “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for legally resident immigrants to year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates and length of visit by class of admission and country of citizenship and not actual population counts.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Unauthorized Immigration Population: 2000–2012

Year

Number (Millions)

2000

8.5 *

2005

10.5 *

2006

11.3 *

2007

11.8 *

2008

11.6 *

2009

10.8 *

2010

10.8 *, 11.6 †

2011

11.5 †

2012

11.4 †

* Based on the 2000 Census

† Based on the 2010 Census

… It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

The sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions about undercount and emigration is illustrated with several examples. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate from 10 percent to 20 percent increases the estimated unauthorized population in 2012 from 11.4 million to 12.9 million. By lowering or raising emigration rates 20 percent and holding all other assumptions constant, the estimated unauthorized immigrant population would range from 10.6 million to 12.3 million. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate and lowering or raising emigration rates by 20 percent would expand the range of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population from 11.9 to 13.8 million.

The new estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, using the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by the center for many years.1 The estimates of the total population, as well as regarding the share of unauthorized immigrants with U.S. citizen children and length of residence in the U.S., update previously published estimates.

Page 14:

Table A1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by Age and Duration of Residence in the U.S., and Their U.S.-Born Children, 1995-2013

The estimates presented in this report for the unauthorized immigrant population are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey—either the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS); the difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that is later adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:

First, all immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980 are assumed to be legal immigrants. Then, the data are corrected for known over-reporting of naturalized citizenship on the part of recently arrived immigrants (Passel et al. 1997) and all remaining naturalized citizens from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America are assigned as legal. … Finally, some individuals are assigned as legal immigrants because they are in certain occupations (e.g., police officer, lawyer, military occupation, federal job) that require legal status or because they are receiving public benefits (e.g., welfare or food stamps) that are limited to legal immigrants. As result of these steps, the foreign-born population is divided between individuals with “definitely legal” status (including long-term residents, naturalized citizens, refugees and asylees, legal temporary migrants, and some legal permanent residents) and a group of “potentially unauthorized” migrants.

The number of potentially unauthorized migrants typically exceeds the estimated number of unauthorized migrants (from the residual estimates) by 15-35%. So, to have a result consistent with the residual estimate of legal and unauthorized immigrants, probabilistic methods are employed to assign legal or unauthorized status to these potentially unauthorized individuals. This last step also involves a check to ensure that the legal statuses of family members are consistent; for example, all family members entering the country at the same time are assumed to have the same legal status.

[109] Paper: “US Undocumented Population Drops Below 11 Million in 2014, with Continued Declines in the Mexican Undocumented Population.” By Robert Warren. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2016. <jmhs.cmsny.org>

Pages 1-2:

Undocumented immigration has been a significant political issue in recent years, and is likely to remain so throughout and beyond the presidential election year of 2016. One reason for the high and sustained level of interest in undocumented immigration is the widespread belief that the trend in the undocumented population is ever upward. This paper shows that this belief is mistaken and that, in fact, the undocumented population has been decreasing for more than a half a decade.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Total Undocumented Population: 2008 to 2014

Year

Number (Millions)

2008

12.0

2009

11.9

2010

11.7

2011

11.3

2012

11.1

2013

11.0

2014

10.9

Page 13:

The following is a brief description of the methodology that CMS used to derive detailed annual estimates of the undocumented population for 2010 to 2014. As Table A-1 shows, the initial focus was on the estimates for 2010; the procedures used to derive the estimates for each year after that are straightforward.

The estimation began with the reported characteristics of non-US citizens (henceforth, noncitizens) in the micro data of the ACS in 2010. For the estimation procedure, the three relevant data items from the survey are country of birth, citizenship, and year of entry. Noncitizens who entered the United States before 1982 are excluded because (1) pre-1982 entrants could have legalized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and (2) those who did not do so have had about 30 years in which to leave the undocumented resident population.7

The methodology involved three major steps: (1) applying a series of edits, referred to here as “logical edits,”8 to identify as many legal residents as possible based on responses in the survey; (2) deriving separate population controls, for 145 countries or areas, for undocumented residents in 2010; and (3) using those population controls to make final selections of individual respondents in the ACS to be classified as undocumented residents. Table A-1 shows the specific steps followed to select sample data for undocumented immigrants from Brazil who were counted in the ACS each year from 2010 to 2014. The same set of procedures were followed for each of the 145 countries or areas. A more detailed description of the data sources and methods is available in Warren (2014).

The final step in the methodology was to adjust the estimates for under-enumeration. The most recent entrants were assumed to have the highest undercount rates (about 12%), and the undercount rate drops steadily with length of residence, falling to 2 percent for those who entered in 1982. The estimated undercount rate for the entire population is approximately 7.5 percent.

The Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS) is a peer-reviewed public policy publication of the Center for Migration Studies (CMS). The journal’s theme of “human security” is meant to evoke the widely shared goals of creating secure and sustaining conditions in migrant sending communities; promoting safe, legal migration options; and developing immigration and integration policies that benefit sending and receiving communities and allow newcomers to lead productive, secure lives. This thematic focus encompasses the broad scope of the social, political and economic dimensions of “human security.”

[111] Calculated with data from the report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 7: “Country of Birth and State of Residence of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population: January 2000 and 2005–2012”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[112] Calculated with data from the report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 7: “Country of Birth and State of Residence of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population: January 2000 and 2005–2012”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

Because the census determines congressional representation and how resources are allocated, it is often the subject of political contention. One issue has to do with sampling, that is, using various statistical techniques to reduce the problem of undercounting those likely to be missed by census takers. Predominant among these are the homeless and, most significant, undocumented immigrants. Since such people tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York–sampling has been denounced by Republicans, who say it is unscientific and does not meet the constitutional mandate for a decadal “enumeration.” For these reasons, sampling has not been used to determine final census numbers for the purposes of congressional representation.

[114] Calculated with data from the report: “World Population Prospects: 2015 Revision.” United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015. <esa.un.org>

Pages 13-17:

Table S.1. Total Population by Sex in 2015 and Sex Ratio by Country in 2015

Population (thousands) …

World … 2015 [=] 7,349,472 …

United States of America [=] 321,774

CALCULATION: 321,774 / 7,349,472 = 4.4%

[115] Calculated with data from the report: “International Migration Policies: Government Views and Priorities.” United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013. <www.un.org>

Page 91:

Information about undocumented migrants or migrants in irregular situation is often difficult to obtain or quantify. Estimates vary greatly from one source to another. For example, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has estimated that 10–15 per cent of the world’s 214 million international migrants in 2010 were undocumented (IOM, 2013a). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has estimated that around one third of all migration flows in countries in less developed regions were undocumented (UNDP, 2009). Both the United Nations and the OECD include undocumented migrants in their estimation of migrant stocks, but the exact magnitude of migrants in irregular situation remains unknown.

The United States of America is one of the few countries with relatively accurate estimates of undocumented migrants. Using a “residual methodology”, the number of undocumented migrants in the United States of America was estimated at 11.7 million in March 2012 (Pew Research Center, 2013). For the 27 countries of the European Union in 2008, the CLANDESTINO Project estimated 1.9–3.8 million undocumented migrants (CLANDESTINO, 2009). In Australia, the Government estimated that in 2012 about 61,000 persons were in irregular situation (Australia, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2013). The Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation estimated the number of undocumented migrants at 3 million in 2013 (RIA Novosti, 2013), whereas the OECD had estimated a total of 5–6 million undocumented migrants in Russia in 2012 (OECD, 2012).

CALCULATION: 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. / (214 million immigrants in the world × 10% to 15% illegal) = 36% to 55%

[116] Report: “Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2015.” By John Teke and Waleed Navarro. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals granted temporary admission to the United States. The major purposes for which nonimmigrant admission is authorized include temporary visits for business or pleasure, academic or vocational study, temporary employment, and to act as a representative of a foreign government or international organization, among others. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collects information on the characteristics of certain nonimmigrant admissions from DHS Form I-94 arrival records. This DHS Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report presents information gathered from I-94s on the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in 2015.

During 2015,1 DHS granted a total of more than 181 million nonimmigrant admissions to the United States, according to DHS workload estimates (see Figure 1).2 These admissions included about 104.4 million visitors, mainly business travelers and tourists from Canada and Mexico, who were exempted from filling out I-94/I-94W forms, as discussed below, and about 76.6 million nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94/I-94W (collectively referred to as I-94 admissions)—the primary focus of this report.3 About 90 percent of I-94 admissions were temporary visitors for business and pleasure, 4.9 percent were temporary workers and their families, and 2.6 percent were students and their families. The leading countries of citizenship for I-94 admissions were Mexico (27 percent), Canada (18 percent), the United Kingdom (6.5 percent), Japan (5.2 percent), and China (3.8 percent).

[117] Dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised January 27, 2017. <www.bea.gov>

“Population (thousands) … 2015 [=] 321,173”

CALCULATION: 104,400,000 / 321,173,000 = 33%

[118] Report: “Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Resident Nonimmigrant Population in the United States: Fiscal Year 2014.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident nonimmigrant population in the United States during Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.1 In this report, the term resident nonimmigrant refers to foreign nationals who are legally admitted into the United States for specific, temporary purposes and whose classes of admission are associated with residency (e.g., students and temporary workers, as opposed to tourists and business travelers).2 The characteristics analyzed include category of admission (groups of related nonimmigrant visa classes), country of citizenship, age, sex, and destination state. The estimates are derived from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative records of nonimmigrant arrivals and departures.

About 1.7 million nonimmigrants resided in the United States on average during 2014.3 Temporary workers and their families4 accounted for slightly more than 45 percent of the total and students and their families accounted for nearly 40 percent. More than half of the population were citizens of Asian countries and 80 percent were ages 18 through 44.

Data and Method

Data are not available to measure the resident nonimmigrant population directly, so this report develops a statistical model of nonimmigrant visit lengths, and applies the model to the population of nonimmigrants entering since October 1, 2003, to estimate the current population.

Page 2:

In addition, no nationally representative surveys exist that are immediately useful for estimating or measuring the resident nonimmigrant population. Although several representative surveys distinguish between native- and foreign-born persons, no large, national surveys distinguish between (temporary) nonimmigrants and (permanent) immigrants. …

Analysis was restricted to resident nonimmigrant classes of admission, i.e., classes characterized by visits lasting two months or longer on average. The two-month duration was chosen in order to be consistent with the residence definitions used in the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and DHS estimates of the size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population (Hoefer et al., 2012). Because admission under a residence class does not always indicate residence in the United States, data were further restricted by omitting records for persons exhibiting likely commuter behavior (defined here as arriving in the United States seven or more times per year).

Limitations

The accuracy and precision of the population estimates depend on how well the visit-length probability models derived from 2014 departure cohorts represent the visit-length probabilities for all visits, the choice of classification variables, and the veracity of the assumptions. Some important limitations are covered below.

Temporary Worker – An alien coming to the United States to work for a temporary period of time. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990, as well as other legislation, revised existing classes and created new classes of nonimmigrant admission. Nonimmigrant temporary worker classes of admission are as follows:

1. H-1A-registered nurses (valid from 10/1/1990 through 9/30/1995);

2. H-1B-workers with “specialty occupations” admitted on the basis of professional education, skills, and/or equivalent experience;

3. H-1C-registered nurses to work in areas with a shortage of health professionals under the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999;

4. H-2A-temporary agricultural workers coming to the United States to perform agricultural services or labor of a temporary or seasonal nature when authorized workers are unavailable in the United States;

5. H-2B-temporary non-agricultural workers coming to the United States to perform temporary services or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing the service or labor cannot be found in the United States;

6. H-3-aliens coming temporarily to the United States as trainees, other than to receive graduate medical education or training;

7. O-1, O-2, O-3-temporary workers with extraordinary ability or achievement in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; those entering solely for the purpose of accompanying and assisting such workers; and their spouses and children;

8. P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4-athletes and entertainers at an internationally recognized level of performance; artists and entertainers under a reciprocal exchange program; artists and entertainers under a program that is “culturally unique”; and their spouses and children;

9. Q-1, Q-2, Q-3-participants in international cultural exchange programs; participants in the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program; and spouses and children of Irish Peace Process participants;

10. R-1, R-2-temporary workers to perform work in religious occupations and their spouses and children.

See other sections of this Glossary for definitions of Exchange Visitor, Intracompany Transferee, and U.S.-Canada or North American Free-Trade Agreement classes of nonimmigrant admission.

[121] Report: “Latinos’ Lives and Health Today Summary, Part Two: Immigrants and Non-Immigrants.” NPR, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health, January 2014. <www.rwjf.org>

Page 2:

The survey asked Latino immigrants about the reasons they had come to this country and found that most report there was more than one major reason. A strong majority (81%) report a major reason was to have a better life. High numbers also say that finding a better job or other economic reasons (70%) and living in a safer community (62%) were major reasons. Half (50%) said joining family members was a major reason, while just under a third (32%) said getting better health care was a major reason.

Page 5:

Interviews were conducted via telephone (including both landline and cell phone) by SSRS of Media (PA), June 11 – July 14, 2013, among a nationally representative sample of 1478 Latinos age 18 and older. The interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for total respondents is ± 3.7 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

[122] Article: “From Germany to Mexico: How America’s Source of Immigrants Has Changed Over a Century.” By Jens Manuel Krogstad and Michael Keegan. Pew Research, October 7, 2015. <www.pewresearch.org>

“Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 1965, making the nation the top destination in the world for those moving from one country to another. Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”

[123] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

11,643,298

±77,644

27%

India

2,389,639

±31,113

6%

China

2,065,431

±33,869

5%

Philippines

1,982,369

±30,007

5%

El Salvador

1,352,357

±31,379

3%

Vietnam

1,300,515

±27,733

3%

Cuba

1,210,674

±23,840

3%

Dom. Rep.

1,063,239

±28,770

2%

Korea

1,060,019

±20,054

2%

Guatemala

927,593

±23,812

2%

Total of Top 10 †

24,995,134

58%

Canada

830,628

±17,129

2%

Jamaica

711,134

±19,231

2%

Colombia

699,399

±20,772

2%

United Kingdom

683,473

±13,753

2%

Haiti

675,546

±22,289

2%

Honduras

599,030

±25,695

1%

Germany

585,298

±12,124

1%

Peru

445,921

±17,981

1%

Ecuador

441,257

±19,017

1%

Poland

419,332

±12,547

1%

Iran

394,223

±14,189

1%

Russia

386,529

±13,859

1%

Pakistan

379,435

±17,427

1%

Taiwan

377,893

±12,637

1%

Brazil

361,374

±15,675

1%

Italy

352,492

±11,766

1%

Ukraine

345,620

±11,934

1%

Japan

335,767

±11,198

1%

Nigeria

323,635

±18,271

1%

Guyana

281,408

±12,349

1%

Nicaragua

256,171

±12,391

1%

Venezuela

255,520

±13,320

1%

Thailand

247,205

±10,349

1%

Hong Kong

233,373

±7,808

1%

Ethiopia

228,745

±13,680

1%

Bangladesh

228,682

±14,479

1%

Trinidad and Tobago

227,295

±8,816

1%

All Others †

6,001,942

14%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[124] Report: “Troubled by Crime, the Economy, Drugs and Corruption: Most Mexicans See Better Life in U.S.—One-in-Three Would Migrate.” Pew Research, September 23, 2009. <www.pewglobal.org>

Page 2: “Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1,000 adults in Mexico between May 26 and June 2, 2009. The sample is representative of the country’s adult population, and the margin of sampling error for the results is plus or minus three percentage points.”

Page 32:

Q9a Now I am going to read you a list of things that may be problems in our country. Tell me if you think it is a very big problem, a moderately big problem, a small problem or not a problem at all: a. crime

Very big problem

Moderately big problem

Small problem

Not a problem at all

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

81

17

2

0

0

100

Spring, 2007

64

32

3

0

1

100

Summer, 2002

81

17

1

0

0

100

Q9b Now I am going to read you a list of things that may be problems in our country. Tell me if you think it is a very big problem, a moderately big problem, a small problem or not a problem at all: b. corrupt political leaders

Very big problem

Moderately big problem

Small problem

Not a problem at all

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

68

26

5

1

1

100

Spring, 2007

63

28

6

2

1

100

Summer, 2002

72

23

3

0

1

100

Page 38:

Q42 In the past year, how often, if ever, have you had to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe to a government official in order to get services or a document that the government is supposed to provide?

Very often

Somewhatoften

Not too often

Not at all

Never(Volunteered)

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

7

23

21

34

14

2

100

Spring, 2007

13

21

19

31

14

2

100

Summer, 2002

8

15

16

38

21

1

100

CALCULATION: 7% Very often + 23% Somewhat often + 21% Not too often = 51% Sometime in past year

Page 40:

Q68 If, at this moment you had the means and opportunity to go to live in the United States, would you go?

Yes

No

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

33

62

5

100

Q69 Ask if Respondent Wants to Go to Live in the United States: And would you be inclined to go work and live in the U.S. without authorization?

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[126] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112-114. <www.researchgate.net>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

Pages 338-339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with casual factors.”

[128] Report: “International Comparisons of GDP Per Capita and Per Hour, 1960–2011.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 7, 2012. <www.bls.gov>

Page 1: “GDP per capita, when converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities, is the most widely used income measure for international comparisons of living standards.”

Page 2:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is defined as the value of all market and some nonmarket goods and services produced within a country’s geographic borders. As such, it is the most comprehensive measure of a country’s economic output that is estimated by statistical agencies. GDP per capita may therefore be viewed as a rough indicator of a nation’s economic well being, while GDP per hour worked can provide a general picture of a country’s productivity.

Page 473: “GDP per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.”

[130] Book review: “The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics.” By William Easterly. MIT Press, 2001.” By Terry J. Fitzgerald (Senior Economist and Assistant Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis). The Region, September 2003. <www.minneapolisfed.org>

Economists are sometimes criticized for focusing their attention on gross domestic product per capita, or income per person, as a measure of the material success of an economy. Easterly explains why they do: “We experts don’t care about rising gross domestic product for its own sake. We care because it betters the lot of the poor and reduces the proportion of people who are poor. We care because richer people can eat more and buy more medicines for their babies.”

Still, an important empirical question is whether national economic growth raises the incomes of those in poverty, not just those who are already well off. Here Easterly provides the reader with an overview of the evidence on poverty and growth and reports that the answer is a clear yes. (Throughout the book the author offers readers numerous direct references should they wish to peruse the evidence on their own.) And in a statement that may rankle some, Easterly provocatively offers that “growth has been much more of a lifesaver to the poor than redistribution.” Indeed, recent research by Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University—released after The Elusive Quest’s publication—finds that poverty has declined dramatically worldwide over the past three decades as incomes have risen. Yet, not all would concede Easterly’s point.

[131] Working paper: “Growth is Good for the Poor.” By David Dollar and Aart Kraay. World Bank, April 2001. <library1.nida.ac.th>

Page 5:

Income of the poor has a very tight link with overall incomes. The top panel of Figure 1 shows the logarithm of average income in the poorest fifth of the population plotted against the logarithm of average income for the whole economy (per capita GDP). The graph includes 418 observations covering 137 countries, and multiple observations for a single country are separated by at least five years over time. The slope of this relationship is very close to one, and all of the observations are closely clustered around this regression line. This indicates that as overall income increases, on average incomes of the poor increase equiproportionately.

GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the U.S. dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current international dollars based on the 2011 ICP round.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

NOTES:

The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.

The “GDP Per Capita” data shown in the chart is for 2015, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Over two-thirds of the 176 countries and territories in this year’s index fall below the midpoint of our scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The global average score is a paltry 43, indicating endemic corruption in a country’s public sector. …

The lower-ranked countries in our index are plagued by untrustworthy and badly functioning public institutions like the police and judiciary. Even where anti-corruption laws are on the books, in practice they’re often skirted or ignored. People frequently face situations of bribery and extortion, rely on basic services that have been undermined by the misappropriation of funds, and confront official indifference when seeking redress from authorities that are on the take. …

Higher-ranked countries tend to have higher degrees of press freedom, access to information about public expenditure, stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems.

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide. …

What are the data sources for the CPI?

The 2016 CPI draws on data sources from independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the 2016 CPI are based on data gathered in the past 24 months. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International reviews the methodology of each data source in detail to ensure that the sources used meet Transparency International’s quality standards.

Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 190, with first place being the best. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. The index averages the country’s percentile rankings on 10 topics covered in the World Bank’s Doing Business. The ranking on each topic is the simple average of the percentile rankings on its component indicators.

Aggregation Method: Unweighted average

Development Relevance: The economic health of a country is measured not only in macroeconomic terms but also by other factors that shape daily economic activity such as laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements. The data measure business regulation, gauge regulatory outcomes, and measure the extent of legal protection of property, the flexibility of employment regulation, and the tax burden on businesses. The fundamental premise of this data is that economic activity requires good rules and regulations that are efficient, accessible to all who need to use them, and simple to implement. Thus sometimes there is more emphasis on more regulation, such as stricter disclosure requirements in related-party transactions, and other times emphasis is on for simplified regulations, such as a one-stop shop for completing business startup formalities. Entrepreneurs may not be aware of all required procedures or may avoid legally required procedures altogether. But where regulation is particularly onerous, levels of informality are higher, which comes at a cost: firms in the informal sector usually grow more slowly, have less access to credit, and employ fewer workers—and those workers remain outside the protections of labor law. The indicator can help policymakers understand the business environment in a country and—along with information from other sources such as the World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys—provide insights into potential areas of reform.

General Comments: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year. Data before 2013 are not comparable with data from 2013 onward due to methodological changes.

Limitations and Exceptions: The Doing Business methodology has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, the data collected refer to businesses in the economy’s largest city and may not represent regulations in other locations of the economy. To address this limitation, subnational indicators are being collected for selected economies. These subnational studies point to significant differences in the speed of reform and the ease of doing business across cities in the same economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company of a specified size—and may not represent regulation for other types of businesses such as sole proprietorships. Third, transactions described in a standardized business case refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues a business encounters. Fourth, the time measures involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the Doing Business time indicators represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Fifth, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Data are collected by the World Bank with a standardized survey that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location, and nature of its operation. Surveys are administered through more than 9,000 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials, and other professionals who routinely administer or advise on legal and regulatory requirements. The indicator measures the time, cost, and outcome of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities. The time required for creditors to recover their credit is recorded in calendar years. The cost of the proceedings is recorded as a percentage of the value of the debtor’s estate. The Doing Business project of the World Bank encompasses two types of data: data from readings of laws and regulations and data on time and motion indicators that measure efficiency in achieving a regulatory goal. Within the time and motion indicators cost estimates are recorded from official fee schedules where applicable. The data from surveys are subjected to numerous tests for robustness, which lead to revision or expansion of the information collected.

NOTES:

The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.

The “Ease of Doing Business Index” data shown in the chart is for 2016, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: In some regions, organized crime, drug trafficking and the violent cultures of youth gangs are predominantly responsible for the high levels of homicide. There has been a sharp increase in homicides in some countries, particularly in Central America, are making the activities of organized crime and drug trafficking more visible. Greater use of firearms is often associated with the illicit activities of organized criminal groups, which are often linked to drug trafficking. Knowledge of the patterns and causes of violent crime are crucial to forming preventive strategies. Young males are the group most affected by violent crime in all regions, particularly in the Americas. Yet women of all ages are the victims of intimate partner and family-related violence in all regions and countries. Indeed, in many of them, it is within the home where a woman is most likely to be killed. Data on intentional homicides are from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which uses a variety of national and international sources on homicides—primarily criminal justice sources as well as public health data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization—and the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems to present accurate and comparable statistics. The UNODC defines homicide as “unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.” This definition excludes deaths arising from armed conflict.

Limitations and Exceptions: Statistics reported to the United Nations in the context of its various surveys on crime levels and criminal justice trends are incidents of victimization that have been reported to the authorities in any given country. That means that this data is subject to the problems of accuracy of all official crime data. The survey results provide an overview of trends and interrelationships between various parts of the criminal justice system to promote informed decision-making in administration, nationally and internationally. The degree to which different societies apportion the level of culpability to acts resulting in death is also subject to variation. Consequently, the comparison between countries and regions of “intentional homicide”, or unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person, is also a comparison of the extent to which different countries deem that a killing be classified as such, as well as the capacity of their legal systems to record it. Caution should therefore be applied when evaluating and comparing homicide data.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The definitions used to produce data are in line with the homicide definition used in the UNODC Homicide Statistics dataset. On the basis of these selection criteria and subject to data availability, a long and continuous time series including recent data on homicide counts and rates has been identified or created at country level. Data included in the dataset correspond to the original value provided by the source of origin, since no statistical procedure or modeling was used to change collected values or to create new or revised figures. The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual. Criminal justice data were collected through UNODC regular collections of crime data from Member States, through publicly available data produced by national government sources and from data compiled by other international and regional agencies, including from Interpol, Eurostat, the Organization of American States and UNICEF. Public health data on homicides were mainly derived from databases on deaths by cause disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The inclusion of recent data was given a higher priority in the selection process than the length of the time series (number of years covered). An analysis of official reports and research literature is regularly carried out to verify homicide data used by government agencies and the scientific community. As a result of the data collection and validation process, in many countries several homicide datasets have become available from different or multiple sources. Therefore, data series have been selected to provide the most appropriate reference counts.

NOTES:

The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.

The “Intentional Homicides” data shown in the chart is for 2012, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Electric power consumption measures the production of power plants and combined heat and power plants less transmission, distribution, and transformation losses and own use by heat and power plants.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: An economy’s production and consumption of electricity are basic indicators of its size and level of development. Although a few countries export electric power, most production is for domestic consumption. Expanding the supply of electricity to meet the growing demand of increasingly urbanized and industrialized economies without incurring unacceptable social, economic, and environmental costs is one of the great challenges facing developing countries. Modern societies are becoming increasing dependent on reliable and secure electricity supplies to underpin economic growth and community prosperity. This reliance is set to grow as more efficient and less carbon intensive forms of power are developed and deployed to help decarbonize economies. Maintaining reliable and secure electricity services while seeking to rapidly decarbonize power systems is a key challenge for countries throughout the world. In developing economies growth in energy use is closely related to growth in the modern sectors—industry, motorized transport, and urban areas—but energy use also reflects climatic, geographic, and economic factors (such as the relative price of energy). Energy use has been growing rapidly in low- and middle-income economies, but high-income economies still use almost five times as much energy on a per capita basis. Governments in many countries are increasingly aware of the urgent need to make better use of the world’s energy resources. Improved energy efficiency is often the most economic and readily available means of improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Limitations and Exceptions: Data on electric power production and consumption are collected from national energy agencies by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and adjusted by the IEA to meet international definitions. Data are reported as net consumption as opposed to gross consumption. Net consumption excludes the energy consumed by the generating units. For all countries except the United States, total electric power consumption is equal total net electricity generation plus electricity imports minus electricity exports minus electricity distribution losses. The IEA makes these estimates in consultation with national statistical offices, oil companies, electric utilities, and national energy experts. The IEA occasionally revises its time series to reflect political changes, and energy statistics undergo continual changes in coverage or methodology as more detailed energy accounts become available. Breaks in series are therefore unavoidable.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Electric power consumption per capita (kWh ) is the production of power plants and combined heat and power plants less transmission, distribution, and transformation losses and own use by heat and power plants, divided by midyear population. Energy data are compiled by the International Energy Agency (IEA). IEA data for economies that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are based on national energy data adjusted to conform to annual questionnaires completed by OECD member governments. Electricity consumption is equivalent to production less power plants’ own use and transmission, distribution, and transformation losses less exports plus imports. It includes consumption by auxiliary stations, losses in transformers that are considered integral parts of those stations, and electricity produced by pumping installations. Where data are available, it covers electricity generated by primary sources of energy—coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, tide and wave, and combustible renewables. Neither production nor consumption data capture the reliability of supplies, including breakdowns, load factors, and frequency of outages.

NOTES:

The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall picture or trend.

The “Electric Power Consumption” data shown in the chart is for 2013, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditures as a ratio of total population. It covers the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health but does not include provision of water and sanitation. Data are in international dollars converted using 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) rates.

Development Relevance: Health systems—the combined arrangements of institutions and actions whose primary purpose is to promote, restore, or maintain health (World Health Organization, World Health Report 2000)—are increasingly being recognized as key to combating disease and improving the health status of populations. The World Bank’s Healthy Development: Strategy for Health, Nutrition, and Population Results emphasizes the need to strengthen health systems, which are weak in many countries, in order to increase the effectiveness of programs aimed at reducing specific diseases and further reduce morbidity and mortality. To evaluate health systems, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that key components—such as financing, service delivery, workforce, governance, and information—be monitored using several key indicators. The data are a subset of the key indicators. Monitoring health systems allows the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of different health system models to be compared. Health system data also help identify weaknesses and strengths and areas that need investment, such as additional health facilities, better health information systems, or better trained human resources.

Limitations and Exceptions: Country data may differ in terms of definitions, data collection methods population coverage and estimation methods used. In countries where the fiscal year spans two calendar years, expenditure data have been allocated to the later year (for example, 2009 data cover fiscal year 2008/09). Many low-income countries use Demographic and Health Surveys or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys funded by donors to obtain health system data.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Health expenditure data are broken down into public and private expenditures. In general, low-income economies have a higher share of private health expenditure than do middle- and high-income countries, and out-of-pocket expenditure (direct payments by households to providers) makes up the largest proportion of private expenditures. High out-of-pocket expenditures may discourage people from accessing preventive or curative care and can impoverish households that cannot afford needed care. Health financing data are collected through national health accounts, which systematically, comprehensively, and consistently monitoring health system resource flows. To establish a national health account, countries must define the boundaries of the health system and classify health expenditure information along several dimensions, including sources of financing, providers of health services, functional use of health expenditures, and beneficiaries of expenditures. The accounting system can then provide an accurate picture of resource envelopes and financial flows and allow analysis of the equity and efficiency of financing to inform policy.

NOTES:

The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.

The “Health Expenditure Per Capita” data shown in the chart is for 2014, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[144] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112-114. <www.researchgate.net>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

Pages 338-339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with casual factors.”

[146] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the U.S. dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current international dollars based on the 2011 ICP round.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

NOTE: The “GDP Per Capita” data shown in the chart is for 2015, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

[148] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 190, with first place being the best. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. The index averages the country’s percentile rankings on 10 topics covered in the World Bank’s Doing Business. The ranking on each topic is the simple average of the percentile rankings on its component indicators.

Aggregation Method: Unweighted average

Development Relevance: The economic health of a country is measured not only in macroeconomic terms but also by other factors that shape daily economic activity such as laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements. The data measure business regulation, gauge regulatory outcomes, and measure the extent of legal protection of property, the flexibility of employment regulation, and the tax burden on businesses. The fundamental premise of this data is that economic activity requires good rules and regulations that are efficient, accessible to all who need to use them, and simple to implement. Thus sometimes there is more emphasis on more regulation, such as stricter disclosure requirements in related-party transactions, and other times emphasis is on for simplified regulations, such as a one-stop shop for completing business startup formalities. Entrepreneurs may not be aware of all required procedures or may avoid legally required procedures altogether. But where regulation is particularly onerous, levels of informality are higher, which comes at a cost: firms in the informal sector usually grow more slowly, have less access to credit, and employ fewer workers—and those workers remain outside the protections of labor law. The indicator can help policymakers understand the business environment in a country and—along with information from other sources such as the World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys—provide insights into potential areas of reform.

General Comments: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year. Data before 2013 are not comparable with data from 2013 onward due to methodological changes.

Limitations and Exceptions: The Doing Business methodology has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, the data collected refer to businesses in the economy’s largest city and may not represent regulations in other locations of the economy. To address this limitation, subnational indicators are being collected for selected economies. These subnational studies point to significant differences in the speed of reform and the ease of doing business across cities in the same economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company of a specified size—and may not represent regulation for other types of businesses such as sole proprietorships. Third, transactions described in a standardized business case refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues a business encounters. Fourth, the time measures involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the Doing Business time indicators represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Fifth, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Data are collected by the World Bank with a standardized survey that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location, and nature of its operation. Surveys are administered through more than 9,000 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials, and other professionals who routinely administer or advise on legal and regulatory requirements. The indicator measures the time, cost, and outcome of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities. The time required for creditors to recover their credit is recorded in calendar years. The cost of the proceedings is recorded as a percentage of the value of the debtor’s estate. The Doing Business project of the World Bank encompasses two types of data: data from readings of laws and regulations and data on time and motion indicators that measure efficiency in achieving a regulatory goal. Within the time and motion indicators cost estimates are recorded from official fee schedules where applicable. The data from surveys are subjected to numerous tests for robustness, which lead to revision or expansion of the information collected.

NOTE: The “Ease of Doing Business Index” data shown in the chart is for 2016, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

[150] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Over two-thirds of the 176 countries and territories in this year’s index fall below the midpoint of our scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The global average score is a paltry 43, indicating endemic corruption in a country’s public sector. …

The lower-ranked countries in our index are plagued by untrustworthy and badly functioning public institutions like the police and judiciary. Even where anti-corruption laws are on the books, in practice they’re often skirted or ignored. People frequently face situations of bribery and extortion, rely on basic services that have been undermined by the misappropriation of funds, and confront official indifference when seeking redress from authorities that are on the take. …

Higher-ranked countries tend to have higher degrees of press freedom, access to information about public expenditure, stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems.

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide. …

What are the data sources for the CPI?

The 2016 CPI draws on data sources from independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the 2016 CPI are based on data gathered in the past 24 months. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International reviews the methodology of each data source in detail to ensure that the sources used meet Transparency International’s quality standards.

[156] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: In some regions, organized crime, drug trafficking and the violent cultures of youth gangs are predominantly responsible for the high levels of homicide. There has been a sharp increase in homicides in some countries, particularly in Central America, are making the activities of organized crime and drug trafficking more visible. Greater use of firearms is often associated with the illicit activities of organized criminal groups, which are often linked to drug trafficking. Knowledge of the patterns and causes of violent crime are crucial to forming preventive strategies. Young males are the group most affected by violent crime in all regions, particularly in the Americas. Yet women of all ages are the victims of intimate partner and family-related violence in all regions and countries. Indeed, in many of them, it is within the home where a woman is most likely to be killed. Data on intentional homicides are from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which uses a variety of national and international sources on homicides—primarily criminal justice sources as well as public health data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization—and the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems to present accurate and comparable statistics. The UNODC defines homicide as “unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.” This definition excludes deaths arising from armed conflict.

Limitations and Exceptions: Statistics reported to the United Nations in the context of its various surveys on crime levels and criminal justice trends are incidents of victimization that have been reported to the authorities in any given country. That means that this data is subject to the problems of accuracy of all official crime data. The survey results provide an overview of trends and interrelationships between various parts of the criminal justice system to promote informed decision-making in administration, nationally and internationally. The degree to which different societies apportion the level of culpability to acts resulting in death is also subject to variation. Consequently, the comparison between countries and regions of “intentional homicide”, or unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person, is also a comparison of the extent to which different countries deem that a killing be classified as such, as well as the capacity of their legal systems to record it. Caution should therefore be applied when evaluating and comparing homicide data.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The definitions used to produce data are in line with the homicide definition used in the UNODC Homicide Statistics dataset. On the basis of these selection criteria and subject to data availability, a long and continuous time series including recent data on homicide counts and rates has been identified or created at country level. Data included in the dataset correspond to the original value provided by the source of origin, since no statistical procedure or modeling was used to change collected values or to create new or revised figures. The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual. Criminal justice data were collected through UNODC regular collections of crime data from Member States, through publicly available data produced by national government sources and from data compiled by other international and regional agencies, including from Interpol, Eurostat, the Organization of American States and UNICEF. Public health data on homicides were mainly derived from databases on deaths by cause disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The inclusion of recent data was given a higher priority in the selection process than the length of the time series (number of years covered). An analysis of official reports and research literature is regularly carried out to verify homicide data used by government agencies and the scientific community. As a result of the data collection and validation process, in many countries several homicide datasets have become available from different or multiple sources. Therefore, data series have been selected to provide the most appropriate reference counts.

NOTE: The “Intentional Homicides” data shown in the chart is for 2012, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

[158] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Electric power consumption measures the production of power plants and combined heat and power plants less transmission, distribution, and transformation losses and own use by heat and power plants.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: An economy’s production and consumption of electricity are basic indicators of its size and level of development. Although a few countries export electric power, most production is for domestic consumption. Expanding the supply of electricity to meet the growing demand of increasingly urbanized and industrialized economies without incurring unacceptable social, economic, and environmental costs is one of the great challenges facing developing countries. Modern societies are becoming increasing dependent on reliable and secure electricity supplies to underpin economic growth and community prosperity. This reliance is set to grow as more efficient and less carbon intensive forms of power are developed and deployed to help decarbonize economies. Maintaining reliable and secure electricity services while seeking to rapidly decarbonize power systems is a key challenge for countries throughout the world. In developing economies growth in energy use is closely related to growth in the modern sectors—industry, motorized transport, and urban areas—but energy use also reflects climatic, geographic, and economic factors (such as the relative price of energy). Energy use has been growing rapidly in low- and middle-income economies, but high-income economies still use almost five times as much energy on a per capita basis. Governments in many countries are increasingly aware of the urgent need to make better use of the world’s energy resources. Improved energy efficiency is often the most economic and readily available means of improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Limitations and Exceptions: Data on electric power production and consumption are collected from national energy agencies by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and adjusted by the IEA to meet international definitions. Data are reported as net consumption as opposed to gross consumption. Net consumption excludes the energy consumed by the generating units. For all countries except the United States, total electric power consumption is equal total net electricity generation plus electricity imports minus electricity exports minus electricity distribution losses. The IEA makes these estimates in consultation with national statistical offices, oil companies, electric utilities, and national energy experts. The IEA occasionally revises its time series to reflect political changes, and energy statistics undergo continual changes in coverage or methodology as more detailed energy accounts become available. Breaks in series are therefore unavoidable.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Electric power consumption per capita (kWh ) is the production of power plants and combined heat and power plants less transmission, distribution, and transformation losses and own use by heat and power plants, divided by midyear population. Energy data are compiled by the International Energy Agency (IEA). IEA data for economies that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are based on national energy data adjusted to conform to annual questionnaires completed by OECD member governments. Electricity consumption is equivalent to production less power plants’ own use and transmission, distribution, and transformation losses less exports plus imports. It includes consumption by auxiliary stations, losses in transformers that are considered integral parts of those stations, and electricity produced by pumping installations. Where data are available, it covers electricity generated by primary sources of energy—coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, tide and wave, and combustible renewables. Neither production nor consumption data capture the reliability of supplies, including breakdowns, load factors, and frequency of outages.

NOTES:

The “Electric Power Consumption” data shown in the chart is for 2013, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

[160] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed April 8, 2017 at <factfinder.census.gov>

Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditures as a ratio of total population. It covers the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health but does not include provision of water and sanitation. Data are in international dollars converted using 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) rates.

Development Relevance: Health systems—the combined arrangements of institutions and actions whose primary purpose is to promote, restore, or maintain health (World Health Organization, World Health Report 2000)—are increasingly being recognized as key to combating disease and improving the health status of populations. The World Bank’s Healthy Development: Strategy for Health, Nutrition, and Population Results emphasizes the need to strengthen health systems, which are weak in many countries, in order to increase the effectiveness of programs aimed at reducing specific diseases and further reduce morbidity and mortality. To evaluate health systems, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that key components—such as financing, service delivery, workforce, governance, and information—be monitored using several key indicators. The data are a subset of the key indicators. Monitoring health systems allows the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of different health system models to be compared. Health system data also help identify weaknesses and strengths and areas that need investment, such as additional health facilities, better health information systems, or better trained human resources.

Limitations and Exceptions: Country data may differ in terms of definitions, data collection methods population coverage and estimation methods used. In countries where the fiscal year spans two calendar years, expenditure data have been allocated to the later year (for example, 2009 data cover fiscal year 2008/09). Many low-income countries use Demographic and Health Surveys or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys funded by donors to obtain health system data.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Health expenditure data are broken down into public and private expenditures. In general, low-income economies have a higher share of private health expenditure than do middle- and high-income countries, and out-of-pocket expenditure (direct payments by households to providers) makes up the largest proportion of private expenditures. High out-of-pocket expenditures may discourage people from accessing preventive or curative care and can impoverish households that cannot afford needed care. Health financing data are collected through national health accounts, which systematically, comprehensively, and consistently monitoring health system resource flows. To establish a national health account, countries must define the boundaries of the health system and classify health expenditure information along several dimensions, including sources of financing, providers of health services, functional use of health expenditures, and beneficiaries of expenditures. The accounting system can then provide an accurate picture of resource envelopes and financial flows and allow analysis of the equity and efficiency of financing to inform policy.

NOTES:

The “Health Expenditure Per Capita” data shown in the chart is for 2014, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[163] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112-114. <www.researchgate.net>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

Pages 338-339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with casual factors.”

GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the U.S. dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current international dollars based on the 2011 ICP round.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

NOTE: The “GDP Per Capita” data shown in the chart is for 2015, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 190, with first place being the best. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. The index averages the country’s percentile rankings on 10 topics covered in the World Bank’s Doing Business. The ranking on each topic is the simple average of the percentile rankings on its component indicators.

Aggregation Method: Unweighted average

Development Relevance: The economic health of a country is measured not only in macroeconomic terms but also by other factors that shape daily economic activity such as laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements. The data measure business regulation, gauge regulatory outcomes, and measure the extent of legal protection of property, the flexibility of employment regulation, and the tax burden on businesses. The fundamental premise of this data is that economic activity requires good rules and regulations that are efficient, accessible to all who need to use them, and simple to implement. Thus sometimes there is more emphasis on more regulation, such as stricter disclosure requirements in related-party transactions, and other times emphasis is on for simplified regulations, such as a one-stop shop for completing business startup formalities. Entrepreneurs may not be aware of all required procedures or may avoid legally required procedures altogether. But where regulation is particularly onerous, levels of informality are higher, which comes at a cost: firms in the informal sector usually grow more slowly, have less access to credit, and employ fewer workers—and those workers remain outside the protections of labor law. The indicator can help policymakers understand the business environment in a country and—along with information from other sources such as the World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys—provide insights into potential areas of reform.

General Comments: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year. Data before 2013 are not comparable with data from 2013 onward due to methodological changes.

Limitations and Exceptions: The Doing Business methodology has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, the data collected refer to businesses in the economy’s largest city and may not represent regulations in other locations of the economy. To address this limitation, subnational indicators are being collected for selected economies. These subnational studies point to significant differences in the speed of reform and the ease of doing business across cities in the same economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company of a specified size—and may not represent regulation for other types of businesses such as sole proprietorships. Third, transactions described in a standardized business case refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues a business encounters. Fourth, the time measures involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the Doing Business time indicators represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Fifth, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Data are collected by the World Bank with a standardized survey that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location, and nature of its operation. Surveys are administered through more than 9,000 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials, and other professionals who routinely administer or advise on legal and regulatory requirements. The indicator measures the time, cost, and outcome of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities. The time required for creditors to recover their credit is recorded in calendar years. The cost of the proceedings is recorded as a percentage of the value of the debtor’s estate. The Doing Business project of the World Bank encompasses two types of data: data from readings of laws and regulations and data on time and motion indicators that measure efficiency in achieving a regulatory goal. Within the time and motion indicators cost estimates are recorded from official fee schedules where applicable. The data from surveys are subjected to numerous tests for robustness, which lead to revision or expansion of the information collected.

NOTE: The “Ease of Doing Business Index” data shown in the chart is for 2016, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Over two-thirds of the 176 countries and territories in this year’s index fall below the midpoint of our scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The global average score is a paltry 43, indicating endemic corruption in a country’s public sector. …

The lower-ranked countries in our index are plagued by untrustworthy and badly functioning public institutions like the police and judiciary. Even where anti-corruption laws are on the books, in practice they’re often skirted or ignored. People frequently face situations of bribery and extortion, rely on basic services that have been undermined by the misappropriation of funds, and confront official indifference when seeking redress from authorities that are on the take. …

Higher-ranked countries tend to have higher degrees of press freedom, access to information about public expenditure, stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems.

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide. …

What are the data sources for the CPI?

The 2016 CPI draws on data sources from independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the 2016 CPI are based on data gathered in the past 24 months. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International reviews the methodology of each data source in detail to ensure that the sources used meet Transparency International’s quality standards.

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: In some regions, organized crime, drug trafficking and the violent cultures of youth gangs are predominantly responsible for the high levels of homicide. There has been a sharp increase in homicides in some countries, particularly in Central America, are making the activities of organized crime and drug trafficking more visible. Greater use of firearms is often associated with the illicit activities of organized criminal groups, which are often linked to drug trafficking. Knowledge of the patterns and causes of violent crime are crucial to forming preventive strategies. Young males are the group most affected by violent crime in all regions, particularly in the Americas. Yet women of all ages are the victims of intimate partner and family-related violence in all regions and countries. Indeed, in many of them, it is within the home where a woman is most likely to be killed. Data on intentional homicides are from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which uses a variety of national and international sources on homicides—primarily criminal justice sources as well as public health data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization—and the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems to present accurate and comparable statistics. The UNODC defines homicide as “unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.” This definition excludes deaths arising from armed conflict.

Limitations and Exceptions: Statistics reported to the United Nations in the context of its various surveys on crime levels and criminal justice trends are incidents of victimization that have been reported to the authorities in any given country. That means that this data is subject to the problems of accuracy of all official crime data. The survey results provide an overview of trends and interrelationships between various parts of the criminal justice system to promote informed decision-making in administration, nationally and internationally. The degree to which different societies apportion the level of culpability to acts resulting in death is also subject to variation. Consequently, the comparison between countries and regions of “intentional homicide”, or unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person, is also a comparison of the extent to which different countries deem that a killing be classified as such, as well as the capacity of their legal systems to record it. Caution should therefore be applied when evaluating and comparing homicide data.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The definitions used to produce data are in line with the homicide definition used in the UNODC Homicide Statistics dataset. On the basis of these selection criteria and subject to data availability, a long and continuous time series including recent data on homicide counts and rates has been identified or created at country level. Data included in the dataset correspond to the original value provided by the source of origin, since no statistical procedure or modeling was used to change collected values or to create new or revised figures. The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual. Criminal justice data were collected through UNODC regular collections of crime data from Member States, through publicly available data produced by national government sources and from data compiled by other international and regional agencies, including from Interpol, Eurostat, the Organization of American States and UNICEF. Public health data on homicides were mainly derived from databases on deaths by cause disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The inclusion of recent data was given a higher priority in the selection process than the length of the time series (number of years covered). An analysis of official reports and research literature is regularly carried out to verify homicide data used by government agencies and the scientific community. As a result of the data collection and validation process, in many countries several homicide datasets have become available from different or multiple sources. Therefore, data series have been selected to provide the most appropriate reference counts.

NOTE: The “Intentional Homicides” data shown in the chart is for 2012, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Electric power consumption measures the production of power plants and combined heat and power plants less transmission, distribution, and transformation losses and own use by heat and power plants.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: An economy’s production and consumption of electricity are basic indicators of its size and level of development. Although a few countries export electric power, most production is for domestic consumption. Expanding the supply of electricity to meet the growing demand of increasingly urbanized and industrialized economies without incurring unacceptable social, economic, and environmental costs is one of the great challenges facing developing countries. Modern societies are becoming increasing dependent on reliable and secure electricity supplies to underpin economic growth and community prosperity. This reliance is set to grow as more efficient and less carbon intensive forms of power are developed and deployed to help decarbonize economies. Maintaining reliable and secure electricity services while seeking to rapidly decarbonize power systems is a key challenge for countries throughout the world. In developing economies growth in energy use is closely related to growth in the modern sectors—industry, motorized transport, and urban areas—but energy use also reflects climatic, geographic, and economic factors (such as the relative price of energy). Energy use has been growing rapidly in low- and middle-income economies, but high-income economies still use almost five times as much energy on a per capita basis. Governments in many countries are increasingly aware of the urgent need to make better use of the world’s energy resources. Improved energy efficiency is often the most economic and readily available means of improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Limitations and Exceptions: Data on electric power production and consumption are collected from national energy agencies by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and adjusted by the IEA to meet international definitions. Data are reported as net consumption as opposed to gross consumption. Net consumption excludes the energy consumed by the generating units. For all countries except the United States, total electric power consumption is equal total net electricity generation plus electricity imports minus electricity exports minus electricity distribution losses. The IEA makes these estimates in consultation with national statistical offices, oil companies, electric utilities, and national energy experts. The IEA occasionally revises its time series to reflect political changes, and energy statistics undergo continual changes in coverage or methodology as more detailed energy accounts become available. Breaks in series are therefore unavoidable.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Electric power consumption per capita (kWh ) is the production of power plants and combined heat and power plants less transmission, distribution, and transformation losses and own use by heat and power plants, divided by midyear population. Energy data are compiled by the International Energy Agency (IEA). IEA data for economies that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are based on national energy data adjusted to conform to annual questionnaires completed by OECD member governments. Electricity consumption is equivalent to production less power plants’ own use and transmission, distribution, and transformation losses less exports plus imports. It includes consumption by auxiliary stations, losses in transformers that are considered integral parts of those stations, and electricity produced by pumping installations. Where data are available, it covers electricity generated by primary sources of energy—coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, tide and wave, and combustible renewables. Neither production nor consumption data capture the reliability of supplies, including breakdowns, load factors, and frequency of outages.

NOTES:

The “Electric Power Consumption” data shown in the chart is for 2013, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures universal access to emergency medical care at all Medicare participating hospitals with emergency departments. Under EMTALA, any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility, regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or any other characteristic, is guaranteed an appropriate screening exam and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge. Failure to abide by these requirements can subject hospitals or physicians to civil monetary sanctions or exclusion from Medicare. Hospitals may also be subject to civil liability under the statute for personal injuries resulting from the violation.

Page 1:

Only hospitals that (1) participate in Medicare and (2) maintain an emergency department are required to screen patients under EMTALA.7 …

7 … Although the screening and stabilization requirements are phrased such that they apply to “hospitals” generally, enforcement of EMTALA is only authorized against hospitals that have entered into a Medicare provider agreement.

Page 1: “[A]s a condition for receiving federal tax exemption for providing health care to the community, not for profit hospitals are required to care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Also, Medicare and Medicaid account for 58 percent of all care provided by hospitals. Consequently, very few hospitals can elect not to participate in Medicare and Medicaid.”

[182] United States Code Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Part E, Section 1395dd: “Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor.” Accessed April 13, 2017 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Medical screening requirement

In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.

If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section. …

(e) Definitions

In this section:

(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

(2) The term “participating hospital” means a hospital that has entered into a provider agreement under section 1395cc of this title.

(3)

(A) The term “to stabilize” means, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(A), to provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B), to deliver (including the placenta).

Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditures as a ratio of total population. It covers the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health but does not include provision of water and sanitation. Data are in international dollars converted using 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) rates.

Development Relevance: Health systems—the combined arrangements of institutions and actions whose primary purpose is to promote, restore, or maintain health (World Health Organization, World Health Report 2000)—are increasingly being recognized as key to combating disease and improving the health status of populations. The World Bank’s Healthy Development: Strategy for Health, Nutrition, and Population Results emphasizes the need to strengthen health systems, which are weak in many countries, in order to increase the effectiveness of programs aimed at reducing specific diseases and further reduce morbidity and mortality. To evaluate health systems, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that key components—such as financing, service delivery, workforce, governance, and information—be monitored using several key indicators. The data are a subset of the key indicators. Monitoring health systems allows the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of different health system models to be compared. Health system data also help identify weaknesses and strengths and areas that need investment, such as additional health facilities, better health information systems, or better trained human resources.

Limitations and Exceptions: Country data may differ in terms of definitions, data collection methods population coverage and estimation methods used. In countries where the fiscal year spans two calendar years, expenditure data have been allocated to the later year (for example, 2009 data cover fiscal year 2008/09). Many low-income countries use Demographic and Health Surveys or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys funded by donors to obtain health system data.

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Health expenditure data are broken down into public and private expenditures. In general, low-income economies have a higher share of private health expenditure than do middle- and high-income countries, and out-of-pocket expenditure (direct payments by households to providers) makes up the largest proportion of private expenditures. High out-of-pocket expenditures may discourage people from accessing preventive or curative care and can impoverish households that cannot afford needed care. Health financing data are collected through national health accounts, which systematically, comprehensively, and consistently monitoring health system resource flows. To establish a national health account, countries must define the boundaries of the health system and classify health expenditure information along several dimensions, including sources of financing, providers of health services, functional use of health expenditures, and beneficiaries of expenditures. The accounting system can then provide an accurate picture of resource envelopes and financial flows and allow analysis of the equity and efficiency of financing to inform policy.

NOTES:

The “Health Expenditure Per Capita” data shown in the chart is for 2014, which is the latest year of available data for a sizeable number of countries.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Prior to the late 19th century, immigration was essentially unregulated. At that time, Congress imposed the first qualitative restrictions, which barred certain undesirable immigrants such as criminals and those with infectious diseases from entering the country.

The Immigration Act of 18823 See 22 Stat. 58. first granted the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to examine foreign nationals arriving in the United States to prohibit the entry of any “person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The Act provided that the examination be delegated to state commissions, boards, or officers.

Public health concerns have been reflected in U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882.1 See the Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882). Among others, “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” were not allowed to enter the United States.2 See the Immigration Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1084 (March 3, 1891).

[188] “An Act to Execute Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to Chinese.” 47th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. <www.ourdocuments.gov>

Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States. …

SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

[189] Webpage: “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed April 17, 2017 at <history.state.gov>

American objections to Chinese immigration took many forms, and generally stemmed from economic and cultural tensions, as well as ethnic discrimination. Most Chinese laborers who came to the United States did so in order to send money back to China to support their families there. At the same time, they also had to repay loans to the Chinese merchants who paid their passage to America. These financial pressures left them little choice but to work for whatever wages they could. Non-Chinese laborers often required much higher wages to support their wives and children in the United States, and also generally had a stronger political standing to bargain for higher wages. Therefore many of the non-Chinese workers in the United States came to resent the Chinese laborers, who might squeeze them out of their jobs. Furthermore, as with most immigrant communities, many Chinese settled in their own neighborhoods, and tales spread of Chinatowns as places where large numbers of Chinese men congregated to visit prostitutes, smoke opium, or gamble. Some advocates of anti-Chinese legislation therefore argued that admitting Chinese into the United States lowered the cultural and moral standards of American society. Others used a more overtly racist argument for limiting immigration from East Asia, and expressed concern about the integrity of American racial composition. …

… In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which, per the terms of the Angell Treaty, suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of 10 years. The Act also required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the country to carry a certificate identifying his or her status as a laborer, scholar, diplomat, or merchant. The 1882 Act was the first in American history to place broad restrictions on immigration. …

In 1888, Congress took exclusion even further and passed the Scott Act, which made reentry to the United States after a visit to China impossible, even for long-term legal residents. The Chinese Government considered this act a direct insult, but was unable to prevent its passage. In 1892, Congress voted to renew exclusion for ten years in the Geary Act, and in 1902, the prohibition was expanded to cover Hawaii and the Philippines, all over strong objections from the Chinese Government and people. Congress later extended the Exclusion Act indefinitely. …

The Chinese Exclusion Acts were not repealed until 1943, and then only in the interests of aiding the morale of a wartime ally during World War II.

[190] Webpage: “The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed April 17, 2017 at <history.state.gov>

In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this legislation, and it included several important provisions that paved the way for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for Japanese and Filipinos. In 1907, the Japanese Government had voluntarily limited Japanese immigration to the United States in the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Philippines was a U.S. colony, so its citizens were U.S. nationals and could travel freely to the United States. China was not included in the Barred Zone, but the Chinese were already denied immigration visas under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

During the 1920s, Congress established annual quotas that imposed the first numerical restrictions on immigration. This was known as the National Origins Quota System. The system limited immigration from each country to a designated percentage of foreign-born persons of that nationality who resided in the United States according to the 1910 census. These quotas did not apply to spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years old) of U.S. citizens.1 See 1921 Emergency Quota Law, Pub. L. 67-5 (May 19, 1921). See Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or the Johnson–Reed Act, Pub. L. 68-139 (May 26, 1924).

These immigration laws required all intending immigrants to obtain an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad and then travel to the United States and seek admission as lawful permanent residents.2 This process is known as “consular processing.” As such, these laws provided no legal procedure by which a foreign national already physically present in the United States could become a permanent resident without first leaving the country to obtain the required immigrant visa.

By 1935, the administrative process of pre-examination was developed so that a foreign national already temporarily in the United States could obtain permanent resident status more quickly and easily.

[192] Webpage: “The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed April 17, 2017 at <history.state.gov>

The literacy test alone was not enough to prevent most potential immigrants from entering, so members of Congress sought a new way to restrict immigration in the 1920s. Immigration expert and Republican Senator from Vermont William P. Dillingham introduced a measure to create immigration quotas, which he set at three percent of the total population of the foreign-born of each nationality in the United States as recorded in the 1910 census. This put the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. President Wilson opposed the restrictive act, preferring a more liberal immigration policy, so he used the pocket veto to prevent its passage. In early 1921, the newly inaugurated President Warren Harding called Congress back to a special session to pass the law. In 1922, the act was renewed for another two years.

When the congressional debate over immigration began in 1924, the quota system was so well-established that no one questioned whether to maintain it, but rather discussed how to adjust it. Though there were advocates for raising quotas and allowing more people to enter, the champions of restriction triumphed. They created a plan that lowered the existing quota from three to two percent of the foreign-born population. They also pushed back the year on which quota calculations were based from 1910 to 1890.

Another change to the quota altered the basis of the quota calculations. The quota had been based on the number of people born outside of the United States, or the number of immigrants in the United States. The new law traced the origins of the whole of the U.S. population, including natural-born citizens. The new quota calculations included large numbers of people of British descent whose families had long resided in the United States. As a result, the percentage of visas available to individuals from the British Isles and Western Europe increased, but newer immigration from other areas like Southern and Eastern Europe was limited.

The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating—the Japanese in particular—would no longer be admitted to the United States.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Near the onset of World War II, the U.S. government became increasingly concerned about the possibility of hostile foreign enemies living in the United States. In response, Congress enacted the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which required foreign-born persons 14 years of age and older to report to a U.S. post office, and later to an immigration office, to be fingerprinted and register their presence in the United States.5 Also known as the Smith Act, Pub. L. 76-670 (June 28, 1940). Those found to have no legal basis to remain in the United States were required to leave or were removed. Those with a valid claim to permanent residency received an Alien Registration Card.

[195] Webpage: “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed April 17, 2017 at <history.state.gov>

“The Chinese Exclusion Acts were not repealed until 1943, and then only in the interests of aiding the morale of a wartime ally during World War II.”

Beginning in World War II, U.S. lawmakers began to dismantle the Asian exclusion regime in response to growing international pressure and scrutiny of America’s racial policies and practices. The Japanese government sought to use the U.S. Asian exclusion laws to disrupt the Sino-American alliance of World War II, causing Washington officials to recognize these laws as a growing impediment to international diplomacy and the war effort. Later, the Soviet Union and other communist powers cited U.S. exclusion policies as evidence of American racial hypocrisy during the Cold War.

A diverse group of actors championed the repeal of Asian exclusion laws over the 1940s and early 1950s. They included former American missionaries to Asia, U.S. and Asian state officials, and Asian and Asian American activists. The movement argued for repeal legislation as an inexpensive way for the United States to demonstrate goodwill, counter foreign criticism, and rehabilitate America’s international image as a liberal democracy. Drawing upon the timely language and logic of geopolitics, advocates lobbied Congressional lawmakers to pass legislation ending the racial exclusion of Asians from immigration and naturalization eligibility, in support of U.S. diplomatic and security interests abroad. …

The 1943 Magnuson Act repealed the thirteen Chinese exclusion laws passed between 1882 and 1913, reopened the United States to nominal Chinese immigration with a race-based immigration quota of 105 persons, and granted naturalization rights to an Asian group for the first time in American history. …

The Magnuson bill passed U.S. Congress on December 17, 1943. In addition to making persons of Chinese descent racially eligible for U.S. citizenship, the law granted China a race-based immigration quota of 105 persons per year.9 (By way of comparison, annual immigration quotas for European nations ranged from the thousands to the ten of thousands and were based on nationality rather than race.) The symbolic quota was sufficient for Washington’s purposes.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 organized all existing immigration laws into one consolidated source.6 This Act is also referred to as the McCarran-Walter Act, Pub. L. 82-414 (June 27, 1952). The INA retained a modified system of both qualitative and numerical restrictions on permanent immigration. The INA established a revised version of the controversial National Origins Quota System, limiting immigration from the eastern hemisphere while leaving immigration from the western hemisphere unrestricted.

The INA also introduced a system of numerically limited immigrant preference categories, some based on desirable job skills and others based on family reunification. Spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years old) of U.S. citizens remained exempt from any quota restrictions.

In addition, the INA established a formal system of temporary (or nonimmigrant) categories under which foreign nationals could come to the United States for various temporary purposes such as to visit, study, or work. For the first time, the INA also provided a procedure for foreign nationals temporarily in the United States to adjust status to permanent resident status without having to travel abroad and undergo consular processing.

Although it has since been amended many times, the INA remains the foundation of current immigration law in the United States.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Congress amended the INA in 1965 to abolish the National Origins Quota System, creating in its place separate quotas for immigration from the eastern and western hemispheres.7 See Pub. L. 89-236 (October 3, 1965). These amendments also established a revised preference system of six categories for family-based and employment-based categories, and added a seventh preference category for refugees. Finally, the law introduced an initial version of what has evolved into today’s permanent labor certification program.

The 1965 Immigration Act ushered in unprecedented waves of Asian and Latin American immigration, transforming the demographics of the American nation. …

The 1965 Hart-Celler Act marked a watershed in American history. The Act abolished the national origins quota system once and for all. It created in its place uniform quotas across countries as well as two categories of preferred immigrants; those individuals with family relationships to U.S. citizens and residents could enter the United States above the per-country caps, while individuals who possessed skills in occupations deemed in short-supply by the U.S. Department of Labor were given preference within the quota pool.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Further amendments in 1976 and 1978 ultimately combined the eastern and western hemisphere quotas into a single worldwide quota system which limited annual immigration from any single country to 20,000 and established an overall limit of 290,000 immigrants per year.8 See Pub. L. 95-412 (October 5, 1978).

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230-166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199-192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[202] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[203] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[204] Webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1200: “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” U.S. House of Senate, 99th Congress (1985-1986). Accessed April 6, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

[205] Public Law 99-608: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.gpo.gov>

[206] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

[207] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The provisions of new INA section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.

New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if “likely to become [a] public charge [ ].” This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 provided a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship for several categories of unauthorized immigrants. The two primary groups1 were immigrants who had continuously and unlawfully resided within the U.S. since before January 1, 1982 (“pre-1982s”) and special agricultural workers (“SAWs”), who were required to have worked at least 90 days in agriculture during each of the years ending on May 1, 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Group 1) or solely during the year ending on May 1, 1986 (Group 2).

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Fact Sheet.

In addition to the residency requirement, pre-1982 IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act) immigrants were required to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government as a prerequisite for legal permanent resident (LPR) status.2 SAWs [special agricultural workers] were not subject to English or civics requirements.

2 For a complete list of the requirements and conditions for both pre-82s and SAWs, see Sections 210A and 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) mandated that persons legalized under INA 245A meet a basic citizenship skills requirement in order to be eligible for adjustment to LPR status. An applicant was permitted to demonstrate basic citizenship skills by:

• Passing the English and civics tests administered by legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); or

• Passing standardized English and civics tests administered by organizations then authorized by the INS.3 The INS Standardized Citizenship Testing Program was conducted by five non-government companies on behalf of the INS. That program was established in 1991 and ended on August 30, 1998. See 63 FR 25080 (May 6, 1998).

At the time of the naturalization re-examination, the officer will only retest the applicant on any portion of the test that the applicant did not satisfy under IRCA. In all cases, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to speak English at the time of the naturalization examination, unless the applicant meets one of the age and time as resident exemptions of English or qualifies for a medical waiver.4 See INA 245A(b)(1)(D)(iii). See 8 CFR 312.3.

[211] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “At the insistence of state governments, newly legalized aliens were prohibited from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans (see Cuban Immigration) and Haitians (See Haitian Immigration) were exempted.”

[212] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986….”

[213] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins….”

[214] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Section 102(a) of the bill adds section 274B to the Immigration and Nationality Act. This new section relates to certain kinds of discrimination in connection with employment in the United States. Section 274B(a) provides that it is an “unfair immigration-related employment practice” to “discriminate against” any individual in hiring, recruitment or referral for a fee, or discharging from employment “because of” such individual’s national origin or—if such individual is a United States citizen or an alien who is a lawful permanent resident, refugee admitted under INA section 207, or asylee granted asylum under section 208, and who has taken certain steps evidencing an intent to become a United States citizen—because of such individual’s citizenship status. Employers of fewer than four employees are expressly exempted from coverage. Discrimination against an “unauthorized alien,” as defined in section 274A(h)(3), is also not covered. Other exceptions include cases of discrimination because of national origin that are covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on citizenship status when lawfully required under government authority, and discrimination in favor of a United States citizen over an alien if the citizen is at least “equally qualified.”

The major purpose of section 274B is to reduce the possibility that employer sanctions will result in increased national origin and alienage discrimination and to provide a remedy if employer sanctions enforcement does have this result. Accordingly, subsection (k) provides that the section will not apply to any discrimination that takes place after a repeal of employer sanctions if this should occur. In the light of this major purpose, the Special Counsel should exercise the discretion provided under subsection (d)(1) so as to limit the investigations conducted on his own initiative to cases involving discrimination apparently caused by an employer’s fear of liability under the employer sanctions program.

[215] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] also increased immigration enforcement at U.S. borders….”

[217] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[219] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. …

… The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. … Verification of citizenship status became a lasting requirement for all new hires.”

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] … for the first time in history, required U.S. employers to verify all newly hired employees’ work authorization in the United States. This is sometimes called the employer sanctions program or the I-9 program.”

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 198615 made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. IRCA requires employers to comply with an employment verification process intended to provide employers with a means to avoid hiring unauthorized aliens. The process requires newly hired employees to present documentation establishing their identity and eligibility to work. From a list of 27 acceptable documents, employees have the choice of presenting 1 document establishing both identity and eligibility to work (e.g., an INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] permanent resident card) or 1 document establishing identity (e.g., a driver’s license) and 1 establishing eligibility to work (e.g., a Social Security card). Generally, employers cannot require the employees to present a specific document. Employers are to review the document or documents that an employee presents and complete an Employment Eligibility Form, INS Form 1-9. On the form, employers are to certify that they have reviewed the documents and that the documents appear genuine and relate to the individual. Employers are expected to judge whether the documents are obviously fraudulent. INS is responsible for checking employer compliance with IRCA’s verification requirements.

[223] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Pages. 6-7:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire immigrants who were unauthorized to work in the United States.11 IRCA established an employment verification process—the Form I-9 process—that required employers to review documents presented by new employees to establish their identity and employment eligibility.12 Employers are required to certify that they have reviewed the documents presented by their employees and that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. Like all employers, employers participating in E-Verify are required to retain Form I-9s for all newly hired employees in accordance with IRCA.

[224] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “Because the measure was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem, a strict deadline for application was established: All applications for legalization were required within one year of May 5, 1987.”

Title I: Immigrants—Subtitle A: Worldwide and Per Country Levels—Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) to set a permanent annual worldwide level of immigration, to begin in FY 1995, with a transition level for FY 1992 through 1994. Sets forth formulas to divide such worldwide level into worldwide levels for the following categories: (1) family-related immigrants; (2) employment-based immigrants; and (3) diversity immigrants. Excludes from such direct numerical limitations specified categories of special immigrants or aliens, including refugees.

Sets forth per country levels for the maximum portion (ceiling) of a country’s total number of immigrant visas which may be for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Makes exceptions to such ceiling if additional visas are available, under specified conditions. Sets forth special rules for: (1) spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens; and (2) countries at such ceiling.

Sets forth special rules for treatment of Hong Kong as a separate foreign state, with specified limitations, under such per country levels.

Revises provisions for asylee adjustments. Increases the maximum numerical limitation on adjustment of asylees. Requires annual asylee enumeration. Waives the numerical limitation for certain current asylees. Provides for adjustment of certain former asylees, subject to specified per country limitations. …

[226] Calculated with data from:

a) Vote 530: “Immigration Act of 1990.” U.S. House of Representatives, October 27, 1990. <clerk.house.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Congress made the most sweeping changes to the original INA by passing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90).12 See Pub. L. 101-649 (November 29, 1990). Key provisions adopted by IMMACT 90 include:

• Significantly increased the worldwide quota limits on permanent immigration from 290,000 to 675,000 per year (plus up to another 125,000 for refugees);

• Established separate preference categories for family-based and employment-based immigration, including moving several special immigrant categories into the employment-based preferences and adding a new category for immigrant investors;

• Established the Diversity Visa Program, making immigrant visas available to randomly selected foreign nationals coming from countries with historically low rates of immigration;

• Created several new nonimmigrant work visa categories: O, P, Q, and R; and

• Reorganized and expanded the types of qualitative bars to U.S. entry, known as inadmissibility or exclusion grounds.

Part 3: Diversity Immigrants—Allocates annually (on a permanent basis beginning in FY 1995) specified numbers of visas for diversity immigrants, i.e. natives of foreign states from which immigration was lower than 50,000 over the preceding five years (weighting distribution of such visas in favor of countries in defined regions that are underrepresented in terms of relative regional populations). Limits the percentage of diversity visas for any single foreign state (treating Northern Ireland as a separate foreign state for such purposes). Requires, as a condition of eligibility for a diversity visa, that an alien have at least: (1) a high school education or its equivalent; or (2) two years of work experience in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience (within five years of the visa application date). Directs the Secretary of State to maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued such diversity visas.

Sets forth diversity transition provisions for immigrant visas for certain groups, as follows. Provides specified numbers of immigrant visas, in FY 1992 through 1994, for aliens who: (1) are natives of foreign states that are not contiguous to the United States and that are identified as adversely affected by the 1986 repeal of the national origins quota system; and (2) have a firm commitment of U.S. employment for at least one year (earmarking a portion of such visas for that foreign state which received the greatest number of visas under certain provisions for adversely affected states). Provides for immigrant visas in FY 1991 for aliens who have been notified of availability of NP-5 visas (i.e. are notified before a certain date of their selection for a visa as a native of an adversely affected state and are qualified but for certain numerical and fiscal year limitations). Provides for a specified number of immigrant visas, in FY 1991 through 1993, for displaced Tibetans and their relatives. (Requires such Tibetans to have been continuously residing in India or Nepal since before enactment of this Act, but gives preference to those who are not firmly resettled in India or Nepal or who are most likely to be resettled successfully in the United States.)

Public health concerns have been reflected in U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882.1 See the Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882). Among others, “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” were not allowed to enter the United States.2 See the Immigration Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1084 (March 3, 1891). In 1990, Congress revised and consolidated all of the grounds of inadmissibility. It narrowed health-related grounds of inadmissibility to include only applicants with communicable diseases, physical or mental disorders with associated harmful behavior, or those with drug abuse or addiction problems.3 See the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Pub. L. 101-649 (November 29, 1990).

Applicants who have communicable diseases of public health significance are inadmissible.1 See INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designated the following conditions as communicable diseases of public health significance that apply to immigration medical examinations conducted in the United States:2 See 42 CFR 34.2(b).

• Gonorrhea

• Leprosy, infectious

• Syphilis, infectious stage

• Tuberculosis (TB), Active—Only a Class A TB diagnosis renders an applicant inadmissible to the United States. Under current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, Class A TB means TB that is clinically active and communicable.

What qualifies as a communicable disease of public health significance is determined by HHS, not by USCIS. Any regulatory updates HHS makes to its list of communicable diseases of public health significance are controlling over the list provided in this Part B. …

2. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

As of January 4, 2010, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is no longer defined as a communicable disease of public health significance according to HHS regulations.6 See the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-293 (July 30, 2008). See 42 CFR 34.2(b) as amended by 74 FR 56547 (Nov. 2, 2009). Therefore, HIV infection does not make the applicant inadmissible on health-related grounds for any immigration benefit adjudicated on or after January 4, 2010, even if the applicant filed the immigration benefit application before January 4, 2010.

The officer should disregard a diagnosis of HIV infection when determining whether an applicant is inadmissible on health-related grounds. The officer should administratively close any HIV waiver application filed before January 4, 2010.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government’s principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. Agencies of HHS conduct health and social science research, work to prevent disease outbreaks, assure food and drug safety, and provide health insurance.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for foreign nationals to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. Foreign nationals may only adjust under a particular basis if they meet the eligibility requirements for that basis at the time of filing the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485). Eligibility requirements vary, depending on the specific basis for adjustment.1 For more information, see Chapter 6, Adjudicative Review [7 USCIS-PM A.6]. See Part B, 245(a) Adjustment [7 USCIS-PM B].

Some relatives of U.S. citizens, known as immediate relatives, do not have to wait for a visa to become available. There is no limit to the number of visas that can be utilized in this category in a particular year. Immediate relatives include:

• Parents of a U.S. citizen

• Spouses of a U.S. citizen

• Unmarried children under the age of 21 of a U.S. citizen

Note: U.S. citizens must be at least 21 years old to apply for their parents.

The qualified relatives of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident in the remaining family-based categories may have to wait for a visa to become available before they can apply for permanent residency. These categories include:

• First Preference: Unmarried, adult (21 years of age or older) sons and daughters of U.S. citizens

• Second Preference A: Spouses of permanent residents and the unmarried children (under the age of 21)) of permanent residents

• Second Preference B: Unmarried sons and daughters (21 years or age or older) of permanent residents

• Third Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, their spouses and their minor children

• Fourth Preference: Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens, their spouses and their minor children

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for foreign nationals to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Foreign nationals eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment:

• Immediate relative of a U.S. citizen;2 Spouses, unmarried children under 21 years of age, and parents (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older). See INA 201(b)(2).

• Other relative of a U.S. citizen or relative of a lawful permanent resident under a family-based preference category;3 This category includes the following family-based preference immigrant classifications: unmarried sons and daughters, 21 years of age and older, of U.S. citizens; spouses and unmarried children, under 21 years of age, of lawful permanent residents; unmarried sons and daughters, 21 years of age and older, of lawful permanent residents; married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older). See INA 203(a).

• Person admitted to the United States as a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen;

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to foreign nationals seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved.

• The children (unmarried and under 21 years of age) of U.S. citizens;

• The parents of U.S. citizens at least 21 years old; and

• Widows or widowers of U.S. citizens if the spouse files a petition within 2 years of the citizen’s death.13 See INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i).

Immigrant visas for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are unlimited, so the visas are always available. In other words, immediate relatives are exempt from the numerical restrictions of other immigrant categories; an immigrant visa is always immediately available at the time they file an adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved.

Immigrant visa numbers for family-based and employment-based immigrant preference categories as well as the Diversity Visa program are limited, so they are not always immediately available.

Family-sponsored preference visas are limited to a minimum of 226,000 visas per year….19 See INA 201(c) and INA 201(d). By statute, these annual visa limits can be exceeded where certain immigrant visa numbers from the previous fiscal year’s allocation were not fully used. Both categories are further divided into several sub-categories, each of which receives a certain percentage of the overall visa numbers as prescribed by law. In addition, there are limits to the percentage of visas that can be allotted based on an immigrant’s country of birth.20 See INA 202(a)(2).

People who want to become immigrants based on employment or a job offer may apply for permanent residence or an immigrant visa abroad, when an immigrant visa number becomes available according to the following employment based preferences:

• First Preference: Priority Workers, including aliens with extraordinary abilities, outstanding professors and researchers, and certain multinational executives and managers

• Second Preference: Members of professions holding an advanced degree or persons of exceptional ability (including individuals seeking a National Interest Waiver)

• Third Preference: Skilled Workers, professionals and other qualified workers

• Fourth Preference: Certain special immigrants including those in religious vocations

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for foreign nationals to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Foreign nationals eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment …

• Foreign national worker under an employment-based preference category;4 This includes priority workers (including aliens with extraordinary ability, outstanding professors and researchers, and certain multinational executives and managers); members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability; or skilled workers, professionals, and other workers. See INA 203(b).

Immigrant visa numbers for family-based and employment-based immigrant preference categories as well as the Diversity Visa program are limited, so they are not always immediately available.

[E]mployment-based preference visas are limited to a minimum of 140,000 visas per year.19 See INA 201(c) and INA 201(d). By statute, these annual visa limits can be exceeded where certain immigrant visa numbers from the previous fiscal year’s allocation were not fully used. Both categories are further divided into several sub-categories, each of which receives a certain percentage of the overall visa numbers as prescribed by law. In addition, there are limits to the percentage of visas that can be allotted based on an immigrant’s country of birth.20 See INA 202(a)(2).

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to foreign nationals seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of foreign nationals who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:14 See INA 201(b) for a complete listing. …

• Persons adjusting status based on Special Agricultural Worker or Legalization provisions;17 See INA 210 and 245A.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to foreign nationals seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of foreign nationals who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:14 See INA 201(b) for a complete listing. …

• Persons adjusting status based on T nonimmigrant (human trafficking victim) status;16 Although a visa is immediately available to T nonimmigrant-based adjustment applicants at the time of filing, there is an annual cap on the number of adjustments allowed each year. Up to 5,000 T nonimmigrants are allowed to adjust status each year. This does not include immediate family members. See INA 245(l).

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to foreign nationals seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of foreign nationals who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:14 See INA 201(b) for a complete listing.

• Persons adjusting status based on refugee or asylee status;15 See INA 209.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for foreign nationals to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Foreign nationals eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment …

• Special immigrant;5 This includes religious workers, special immigrant juveniles, certain Afghans and Iraqis, certain international broadcasters, certain G-4 international organization employee or family member or NATO-6 employee or family member, certain U.S. armed forces members, Panama Canal Zone employees, certain employees or former employees of the U.S. government abroad, and certain physicians. See INA 101(a)(27). …

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to foreign nationals seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of foreign nationals who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:14 See INA 201(b) for a complete listing. …

Under special agreements that the United States maintained after World War II with several Pacific island nations, certain foreign nationals residing outside of the United States were allowed to enlist in the U.S. military. During times of specific hostilities, these foreign nationals could become naturalized U.S. citizens based upon their active duty service if they met certain qualifications. However, once American military action terminated in Vietnam in 1978, they no longer had this pathway to U.S. citizenship.

In the years that followed, Congress discovered that many of these foreign nationals had served multiple tours of duty but were denied advancement in their military careers because they were not U.S. citizens and so were unable to receive security clearances or become officers. In 1991, Congress passed the Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act,1 See Pub. L. 102-110, 105 Stat. 555 (October 1, 1991). creating a special immigrant category for certain qualifying military members. This provision in essence recognized these foreign national military members for their years of service to the United States.

Congress intended the law to be comparable to the special immigrant status awarded to certain U.S. government workers in the Panama Canal and long-term employees of international organizations residing in the United States.2 See INA 101(a)(27)(E), INA 101(a)(27)(F), INA 101(a)(27)(G), INA 101(a)(27)(I), and INA 101(a)(27)(L). See Chapter 4, Panama Canal Zone Employees [7 USCIS-PM F.4] and Chapter 6, International Organization Officers and Employees [7 USCIS-PM F.6].

Sometimes referred to as the “Six and Six program,” adjustment as a special immigrant armed forces member under this law requires either 12 years of honorable, active duty service in the U.S. armed forces or 6 years of honorable, active duty service, if the military member has re-enlisted to serve for an additional 6 years. In addition, these special immigrants may be eligible for immediate citizenship after acquiring lawful permanent resident status, through their service during a designated period of hostilities.3 See INA 329. See Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part I, Military Members and their Families [12 USCIS-PM I].

Special immigrant military members eligible under treaties in effect on October 1, 1991, include nationals of the Philippines, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. While the treaty for Filipinos no longer exists, sailors from the Philippines who served during the Persian Gulf conflict may still qualify under these provisions; a more direct route to naturalization may also be available.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to foreign nationals seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

A visa queue (waiting list or backlog) forms when the demand is higher than the supply of visas for a given year in any category or country. To distribute the visas among all preference categories, DOS allocates the visas by providing visa numbers according to the prospective immigrant’s:

• Preference category;

• Country to which the visa will be charged (usually the country of birth);21 For exceptions to this general rule, see 22 CFR 42.12. and

• Priority date.

Therefore, the length of time an applicant must wait in line before being eligible to file an adjustment application depends on:

• The demand for and supply of immigrant visa numbers;

• The per-country visa limitations; and

• The number of visas allocated for the immigrant’s preference category.22 For more information, see the USCIS website.

3. Priority Dates

The priority date is used to determine an immigrant’s place in the visa queue. The priority date is generally the date when the applicant’s relative or employer properly filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant’s behalf with USCIS. A prospective immigrant’s priority date can be found on Notice of Action (Form I-797) for the petition filed on his or her behalf.23 Form I-797 is contained in the A-file. The officer should verify the priority date by reviewing the actual immigrant petition or permanent labor certification application.

To adjust status to a lawful permanent resident, an applicant must first be eligible for one of the immigrant visa categories established by the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] or another provision of law. …

Security Checks and National Security Concerns

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] conducts background checks on all applicants for adjustment of status to enhance national security and protect the integrity of the immigration process by ensuring that USCIS grants lawful permanent resident status only to those applicants eligible for the requested benefit. The officer must ensure that all security checks are completed, unexpired, and resolved as necessary prior to adjudicating an adjustment application.

In general, a national security concern exists when a person or organization has been determined to have a link to past, current, or planned involvement in an activity or organization involved in terrorism, espionage, sabotage, or the illegal transfer of goods, technology, or sensitive information.2 See INA 212(a)(3)(A), INA 212(a)(3)(B), or INA 212(a)(3)(F). See INA 237(a)(4)(A) or INA 237(a)(4)(B).

Foreign nationals are generally not eligible for adjustment of status [to become a legal permanent resident] if one or more of the following bars to adjustment or grounds of inadmissibility apply. However, adjustment bars do not apply to every type of adjustment pathway. Furthermore, different inadmissibility grounds may apply to different adjustment pathways.

Therefore, applicants may still be able to adjust under certain immigrant categories due to special exceptions or exemptions from the adjustment bars, inadmissibility grounds, or access to program-specific waivers of inadmissibility or other forms of relief. …

Some of the adjustment bars listed may not apply to all applicants. For example, certain adjustment bars do not apply to immediate relatives, VAWA [Violence Against Women Act]-based applicants, certain special immigrants, or employment-based immigrants.

“Some employment-based adjustment applicants may overcome adjustment bars under the provisions of INA 245(k). In addition, some foreign nationals who entered without inspection or are otherwise subject to adjustment bars may still be eligible to adjust status under the provisions of INA 245(i).”

Depending on how a foreign national entered the United States or if a foreign national committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. With certain exceptions, some foreign nationals ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245 include …

• A foreign national who last entered the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection by an immigration officer;9 See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(3).

• A foreign national who last entered the United States as a nonimmigrant crewman;10 See INA 245(c)(1) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(2).

Depending on how a foreign national entered the United States or if a foreign national committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. With certain exceptions, some foreign nationals ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245 include …

• A foreign national who is now employed or has ever been employed in the United States without authorization;11 See INA 245(c)(2) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(4). See INA 245(c)(8) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(10). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from these bars.

With certain exceptions, a foreign national is barred from adjusting status if:

• He or she continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status;2 See INA 245(c)(2). or

• He or she has ever engaged in unauthorized employment, whether before or after filing an adjustment application.3 See INA 245(c)(8).

These bars apply not only to unauthorized employment since an applicant’s most recent entry but also to unauthorized employment during any previous periods of stay in the United States.4 See Section B, Periods of Time to Consider and Effect of Departure [7 USCIS-PM B.6(B)].

As previously discussed, the INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bars to adjustment do not apply to:5 Both INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bar applicants from adjusting if they have engaged in unauthorized employment. However, the language of INA 245(c)(2) includes a specific exclusion for immediate relatives and certain special immigrants that is missing from the language of INA 245(c)(8). Applying traditional concepts of statutory construction, USCIS interprets the exemptions in INA 245(c)(2) to apply to INA 245(c)(8) as well. See 62 FR 39417, 39422 (July 23, 1997). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(10).

• Immediate relatives;

• Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)-based applicants;

• Certain physicians and their accompanying spouse and children;6 See INA 101(a)(27)(H).

• Certain G-4 international organization employees, NATO-6 employees, and their family members;7 See INA 101(a)(27)(I). This group is exempt from INA 245(c)(2), INA 245(c)(7), and INA 245(c)(8).

• Special immigrant juveniles;8 See INA 101(a)(27)(J). or

• Certain members of the U.S. armed forces and their accompanying spouse and children.9 See INA 101(a)(27)(K).

Employment-based applicants also may be eligible for exemption from this bar under INA 245(k).10 See Chapter 8, Inapplicability of Bars to Adjustment, Section E, Employment-Based Exemption under INA 245(k) [7 USCIS-PM B.8(E)].

An applicant employed while his or her adjustment application is pending final adjudication must maintain USCIS employment authorization and comply with the terms and conditions of that authorization.11 See INA 274A, 8 CFR 274a, and 62 FR 39417 (July 23, 1997). The filing of an adjustment application itself does not authorize employment.

A. Definitions

1. Unauthorized Employment

Unauthorized employment is any service or labor performed for an employer within the United States by a foreign national who is not authorized by the INA or USCIS to accept employment or who exceeds the scope or period of the foreign national’s employment authorization.12 See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)-(c) for examples of authorized employment.

Depending on how a foreign national entered the United States or if a foreign national committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. With certain exceptions, some foreign nationals ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245 include …

• Any foreign national who is not in lawful immigration status on the date of filing his or her application;12 See INA 245(c)(2) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(5). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from this bar.

• Any foreign national who has ever failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States, unless his or her failure to maintain status was through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons;13 See INA 245(c)(2) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(6). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from this bar. For information on fault of the applicant or technical reasons, see 8 CFR 245.1(d)(2).

• Any foreign national who was last admitted to the United States in transit without a visa;14 See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(1).

• A foreign national who was last admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) as a visitor under the Guam or CNMI Visa Waiver Program and who is not a Canadian citizen;15 See INA 245(c)(4) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(7). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), are exempt from this bar.

• Any foreign national who was last admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under the Visa Waiver Program;16 See INA 245(c)(4) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(8). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), are exempt from this bar. …

• Any foreign national who is seeking employment-based adjustment of status and who is not maintaining a lawful nonimmigrant status on the date of filing this application;18 See INA 245(c)(7) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(9).

• Any foreign national who has ever violated the terms of his or her nonimmigrant status;19 See INA 245(c)(8) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(10). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from this bar. …

• Any foreign national who was admitted as a nonimmigrant fiancé(e), but did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition or any foreign national who was admitted as the nonimmigrant child of a fiancé(e) whose parent did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition.21 See INA 245(d) and 8 CFR 245.1(c)(6).

A foreign national is in unlawful immigration status if he or she is in the United States without lawful immigration status either because the foreign national never had lawful status or because the foreign national’s lawful status has ended.

Foreign nationals in unlawful immigration status generally include:

• Foreign nationals who entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole;13 USCIS systems may indicate an entry without inspection as “EWI.” and

• Foreign nationals whose lawful immigration status expired or was rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated.14 For example, a foreign national who was admitted as a nonimmigrant is in an unlawful status if the foreign national has violated any of the terms or conditions of the nonimmigrant status—such as by engaging in unauthorized employment, termination of the employment that was the basis for the nonimmigrant status, failing to maintain a full course of study, or engaging in conduct specified in 8 CFR 212.1(e)-(g). The foreign national’s status also becomes unlawful if the foreign national remains in the United States after DHS terminates the foreign national’s nonimmigrant status under 8 CFR 214.1(d).

Any adjustment applicant is ineligible to adjust status under INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act] 245(a) if, other than through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons,1 The language “…other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons…” listed in INA 245(c)(2) also applies to INA 245(c)(8) and is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(d)(2). he or she has ever:

• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States;2 See INA 245(c)(2). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(6). This chapter only addresses one of the three immigration violations described in the INA 245(c)(2) bar. For more information on the other two immigration violations, see Chapter 3, Unlawful Immigration Status at Time of Filing – INA 245(c)(2) [7 USCIS-PM B.3] and Chapter 6, Unauthorized Employment – INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) [7 USCIS-PM B.6]. or

• Violated the terms of his or her nonimmigrant status.3 See INA 245(c)(8). An example of violating the terms of a nonimmigrant status would be if a B-2 visitor were to enroll in college and attend classes. This chapter only addresses one of the two immigration violations described in the INA 245(c)(8) bar. For more information on the other immigration violation, see Chapter 6, Unauthorized Employment – INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) [7 USCIS-PM B.6].

The INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bars to adjustment do not apply to:

• Immediate relatives;4 See INA 201(b). Immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen include the U.S. citizen’s spouse, children (unmarried and under 21 years of age), and parents (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older). Widow(er)s of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals admitted to the United States as a fiancé(e) or child of a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen may also be considered immediate relatives if they meet certain conditions.

• VAWA [Violence Against Women Act]-based applicants;

• Certain physicians and their accompanying spouse and children;5 See INA 101(a)(27)(H).

• Certain G-4 international organization employees, NATO-6 employees, and their family members;6 See INA 101(a)(27)(I).

• Special immigrant juveniles;7 See INA 101(a)(27)(J). or

• Certain members of the U.S. armed forces and their spouse and children.8 See INA 101(a)(27)(K).

Employment-based applicants also may be eligible for exemption from this bar under INA 245(k).9 See Chapter 8, Inapplicability of Bars to Adjustment, Section E, Employment-Based Exemption under INA 245(k) [7 USCIS-PM B.8(E)].

A. Failure to Continuously Maintain Lawful Immigration Status

The bar to adjustment for failing to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States applies to an applicant for adjustment who has:

• Failed to maintain continuously a lawful status since their most recent entry; and

• An applicant who has ever been out of lawful status at any time since any entry.10 See INA 245(c)(2). See Section I, Evidence to Consider [7 USCIS-PM B.4(I)].

Depending on how a foreign national entered the United States or if a foreign national committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. …

Generally, an adjustment applicant is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible for adjustment of status if one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility apply to him or her.

The 1924 Immigration Act3 See Immigration Act of 1924, Pub. L. 68-139, sections 22(b) and 22(c) (May 26, 1924). made obtaining a visa under a false name or submitting false evidence in support of a visa application a federal crime. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the courts used this principle to find that a visa obtained by fraud was no visa at all, making the person’s admission with a fraudulent visa unlawful.4 See Matter of B- and P-, 2 I&N Dec. 638, 640-41 (A.G. 1947), citing McCandless v. Murphy, 47 F.2d 1072 (3rd Cir. 1931). See United States ex rel. Leibowitz v. Schlotfeldt, 94 F.2d 263 (7th Cir. 1938). See United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 96 F.2d 217 (2nd Cir. 1938).

Congress codified the BIA’s and the courts’ approach in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. With former INA 212(a)(19), it created a new bar to admission for any applicant who used fraud or willful misrepresentation to gain entry into the United States or obtain a visa or other documentation.5 Former INA 212(a)(19) made inadmissible any applicant who “seeks to procure, or has sought to procure or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414 (June 27, 1952).

In 1986, Congress amended the bar so that a person could be found inadmissible for using fraud or willful misrepresentation when seeking any benefit under the INA, not just entry, visas, or other documents.6 Congress expanded former INA 212(a)(19) to make one inadmissible for using fraud or willful misrepresentation in relation to “a visa, other documentation, or entry into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act.” See the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, section 6(a), Pub. L. 99-639 (November 10, 1986). Congress re-designated former INA 212(a)(19) as INA 212(a)(6)(C) in 1990 but did not alter the bar to admission itself.7 See the Immigration Act of 1990, section 601(a), Pub. L. 101-649 (November 29, 1990). Substantive changes to the inadmissibility ground did not come until 1996 when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).8 See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. 104-208 (September 30, 1996).

• Fraud or willful misrepresentation made in connection with obtaining an immigration benefit;10 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). and

• False claim to U.S. citizenship made on or after September 30, 1996.11 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

These two grounds differ significantly. This Part J only addresses the inadmissibility determination for fraud or willful misrepresentation made in connection with obtaining an immigration benefit. This includes, however, false claims to U.S. citizenship made prior to September 30, 1996.

Foreign nationals who made a false claim to U.S. citizenship prior to September 30, 1996, cannot be found inadmissible under the false claim to U.S. citizenship ground of inadmissibility.12 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). IIRIRA made this ground applicable only to false claims made on or after September 30, 1996.13 See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, section 344(c), Pub. L. 104-208 (September 30, 1996).

Therefore, for false claims to U.S. citizenship made before September 30, 1996, the officer must analyze the person’s inadmissibility according to the general fraud and willful misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility, as outlined in this Part J.14 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

C. Scope

This guidance addresses inadmissibility for fraud and willful misrepresentation15 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on or after September 30, 1996 is a separate inadmissibility ground. See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). in relation to obtaining a benefit under the INA, including inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship before September 30, 1996.

An applicant may be found inadmissible if he or she obtains a benefit under the INA either through:

• Fraud; or

• Willful misrepresentation.

Although fraud and willful misrepresentation are distinct actions for inadmissibility purposes, they share common elements. All of the elements necessary for a finding of inadmissibility based on willful misrepresentation are also needed for a finding of inadmissibility based on fraud. However, a fraud finding requires two additional elements.

This is why a person who is inadmissible for fraud is always also inadmissible for willful misrepresentation. However, the opposite is not necessarily true: a person inadmissible for willful misrepresentation is not necessarily inadmissible for fraud.1 For more on the interplay between findings of fraud and willful misrepresentation, see Section D, Comparing Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [8 USCIS-PM J.2(D)].

Additionally, misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to other adverse immigration consequences. For example, if the beneficiary commits marriage fraud, it may have adverse immigration consequences for both the petitioner and the beneficiary. …

E. Overview of Admissibility Determination …

When making the inadmissibility determination, the officer should keep in mind the severe nature of the penalty for fraud or willful misrepresentation. The person will be barred from admission for the rest of his or her life unless the person qualifies for and is granted a waiver. The officer should examine all facts and circumstances when evaluating inadmissibility for fraud or willful misrepresentation.

To find a person inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation,1 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). there must be at least some evidence that would permit a reasonable person to find that the person used fraud or that he or she willfully misrepresented a material fact in an attempt to obtain a visa, other documentation, admission into the United States, or any other immigration benefit.2 The “reasonable person” standard is drawn from INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (agency fact-finding must be accepted unless a reasonable fact-finder would necessarily conclude otherwise).

In addition, the evidence must show that the person made the misrepresentation to an authorized official of the U.S. government, whether in person, in writing, or through other means.3 See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994). See Matter of D-L- & A-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 409 (BIA 1991). See Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961). Examples of evidence an officer may consider include oral or written testimony, or any other documentation containing false information. …

B. Procuring a Benefit under the INA

1. General

In order to be found inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation, a person must seek to procure, have sought to procure, or have procured one of the following:

• An immigrant or nonimmigrant visa;

• Other documentation;

• Admission into the United States; or

• Other benefit provided under the INA.

The fraud or willful misrepresentation must have been made to an official of the U.S. government, generally an immigration or consular officer.9 See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994). See Matter of D-L- & A-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 409 (BIA 1991). See Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961).

2. Other Documentation

“Other documentation” refers to documents required when a person applies for admission to the United States. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Re-entry permits;

• Refugee travel documents;

• Border crossing cards; and

• U.S. passports.

Documents evidencing extension of stay are not considered entry documents.10 See Matter of M-y R-, 6 I&N Dec. 315 (BIA 1954). See 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(7), Interpretation of the Terms “Other Documentation” or “Other Benefit.” Similarly, documents such as petitions and labor certification forms are documents that are presented in support of a visa application or applications for status changes. They are not, by themselves, entry documents and therefore, they are also not considered “other documentation.”

However, if such documents are used in support of obtaining another benefit provided under the INA, they may be relevant to a finding of willful misrepresentation or fraud.

3. Other Benefits Provided under the INA

Any “other benefit” refers to an immigration benefit or entitlement provided for by the INA. This includes, but is not limited to:

The medical grounds of inadmissibility, the medical examination of foreign nationals, and the vaccinations administered to foreign nationals are designed to protect the health of the United States population. The immigration medical examination, the resulting medical examination report, and the vaccination record provide the information USCIS uses to determine if a foreign national meets the health-related standards for admissibility.

Four basic medical conditions may make an applicant inadmissible on health-related grounds:

• Communicable disease of public health significance,

• An immigrant’s failure to show proof of required vaccinations,

• Physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior, and

• Drug abuse or addiction.

B. Background

Public health concerns have been reflected in U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882.1 See the Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882). Among others, “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” were not allowed to enter the United States.2 See the Immigration Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1084 (March 3, 1891). In 1990, Congress revised and consolidated all of the grounds of inadmissibility. It narrowed health-related grounds of inadmissibility to include only applicants with communicable diseases, physical or mental disorders with associated harmful behavior, or those with drug abuse or addiction problems.3 See the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Pub. L. 101-649 (November 29, 1990).

As of 1996, Congress requires all immigrant visa and adjustment of status applicants to establish that they have been vaccinated against certain vaccine-preventable diseases.4 See the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208 (September 30, 1996). See INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii).

C. Role of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Because medical knowledge and public health concerns can and do change over time, Congress gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to designate by regulations which conditions make a person inadmissible on health-related grounds.

The HHS component charged with defining these medical conditions is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). …

D. Role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine a foreign national’s admissibility to the United States, which includes determinations based on health reasons.7 See INA 212(a). DHS must follow HHS regulations and instructions when determining whether an applicant is inadmissible on health-related grounds.8 See INA 212(a)(1)(A).

Congress also empowers DHS to designate qualified physicians as civil surgeons who conduct medical examinations of foreign nationals physically present in the United States.9 See INA 232. …

Applicants who have communicable diseases of public health significance are inadmissible.1 See INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designated the following conditions as communicable diseases of public health significance that apply to immigration medical examinations conducted in the United States:2 See 42 CFR 34.2(b).

• Gonorrhea

• Leprosy, infectious

• Syphilis, infectious stage

• Tuberculosis (TB), Active—Only a Class A TB diagnosis renders an applicant inadmissible to the United States. Under current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, Class A TB means TB that is clinically active and communicable.

What qualifies as a communicable disease of public health significance is determined by HHS, not by USCIS. Any regulatory updates HHS makes to its list of communicable diseases of public health significance are controlling over the list provided in this Part B.

1. Additional Communicable Diseases for Applicants Abroad

HHS regulations also list two additional general categories of communicable diseases of public health significance.3 See 42 CFR 34.2(b)(2) and 42 CFR 34.2(b)(3). Currently, these provisions only apply to applicants outside the United States who have to be examined by panel physicians:4 An officer will not encounter such annotations on Form I-693, but may on the DS-2053/DS-2054.

• Communicable diseases that may make a person subject to quarantine, as listed in a Presidential Executive Order, as provided under Section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act.5 See Pub. L. 78-410, 58 Stat. 682, 703 (July 1, 1944), as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. Chapter 6A. The current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases is available at <www.cdc.gov and http:>

• Communicable diseases that may pose a public health emergency of international concern if they meet one or more of the factors listed in 42 CFR 34.3(d) and for which the Director of the CDC has determined that (A) a threat exists for importation into the United States, and (B) such disease may potentially affect the health of the American public. The determination will be made consistent with criteria established in Annex 2 of the revised International Health Regulations. HHS/CDC’s determinations will be announced by notice in the Federal Register.

2. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

As of January 4, 2010, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is no longer defined as a communicable disease of public health significance according to HHS regulations.6 See the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-293 (July 30, 2008). See 42 CFR 34.2(b) as amended by 74 FR 56547 (Nov. 2, 2009). Therefore, HIV infection does not make the applicant inadmissible on health-related grounds for any immigration benefit adjudicated on or after January 4, 2010, even if the applicant filed the immigration benefit application before January 4, 2010.

The officer should disregard a diagnosis of HIV infection when determining whether an applicant is inadmissible on health-related grounds. The officer should administratively close any HIV waiver application filed before January 4, 2010.

B. Parts of Form I-693 Addressing Communicable Diseases

1. Tuberculosis

An initial screening test, either a Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) or an equivalent test for showing an immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens,7 See the Technical Instructions for acceptable tests. is required for all applicants 2 years of age or older. According to the Technical Instructions, applicants under 2 years of age are required to undergo an initial screening test if there is evidence of contact with an applicant known to have TB or there is another reason to suspect TB. For more information, please see the TB Component of the Technical Instructions. …

Class A TB requires a referral to the TB Control Program of the Health Department for evaluation and the completion of TB treatment before the civil surgeon can sign off on the form. In this case, the referral evaluation section must be completed and evidence of treatment must accompany the form. If not, the officer should RFE for corrective action.

All Class B TB (other than Class B, latent TB) requires a referral to the Health Department for follow-up assessment before the civil surgeon can sign off on the form. In this case, the referral evaluation section must be completed. If not, the officer should RFE for corrective action.

For applicants identified with Class B, latent TB, a referral to the Health Department is only recommended under the Technical Instructions. A referral is not required and that section does not have to be completed in this case. Therefore, the officer may accept Form I-693 without the referral evaluation section being completed and should not RFE. …

2. Syphilis and Other Communicable Diseases

Serological testing for syphilis is required for applicants 15 years of age or older. Applicants under 15 years may be tested by the civil surgeon if illness is suspected. The testing age is the age on the date the civil surgeon completed the medical examination and signed the form, not the age at the time of the adjudication of the adjustment application.

The civil surgeon must complete all “Findings” boxes for all categories. The civil surgeon may add explanatory remarks; however, the officer should not RFE simply because there are no remarks. Note that versions of Form I-693 prior to the October 14, 2009 version may not have had boxes for “No Class A or B Condition” for some of these entries. In this case, the adjudicator should accept the finding reflected in the Summary Findings section of the form for the admissibility determination.

Applicants who have physical or mental disorders and harmful behavior associated with those disorders are inadmissible.2 See INA 212(a)(2)(A)(iii). The inadmissibility ground is divided into two subcategories:

• Current physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior.

• Past physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior that is likely to recur or lead to other harmful behavior.

There must be both a physical or mental disorder and harmful behavior to make an applicant inadmissible based on this ground. Neither harmful behavior nor a physical or mental disorder alone renders an applicant inadmissible on this ground. Harmful behavior is defined as behavior that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others.

A physical disorder is a currently accepted medical diagnosis as defined by the current edition of the Manual of International Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death published by the World Health Organization or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.3 HHS regulations define Director as the director of CDC or a designee as approved by the Director or Secretary of HHS. See 42 CFR 34.2(g). Officers should consult the Technical Instructions for additional information, if needed.

A mental disorder is a currently accepted psychiatric diagnosis, as defined by the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.4 HHS regulations define Director as the director of CDC or a designee as approved by the Director or Secretary of HHS. See 42 CFR 34.2(g). Officers should consult the Technical Instructions for additional information, if needed.

Under the Technical Instructions, a diagnosis of substance abuse/addiction for a substance that is not listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (with current associated harmful behavior or a history of associated harmful behavior judged likely to recur) is classified as a mental disorder.5 See Title II of Pub. L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1242, 1247 (October 27, 1970), as amended, codified at 21 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.

Under prior Technical Instructions and the July 20, 2010 or older versions of the form, these conditions were summarized under the drug abuse/addiction part of the form. An officer, however, should not find an applicant inadmissible for “drug abuse/addiction” if a non-controlled substance is involved.

B. Relevance of Alcohol-Related Driving Arrests or Convictions

1. Alcohol Use and Driving

Alcohol is not listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act.6 See Title II of Pub. L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1242, 1247 (October 27, 1970), as amended, codified at 21 U.S.C. 801 et. seq. Therefore, alcohol use disorders are treated as a physical or mental disorder for purposes of determining inadmissibility. As a result, an applicant with an alcohol use disorder will not be deemed inadmissible unless there is current associated harmful behavior or past associated harmful behavior likely to recur. The harmful behavior must be such that it poses, has posed, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others.

In the course of adjudicating benefit applications, officers frequently encounter criminal histories that include arrests and/or convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents, such as DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated). These histories may or may not rise to the level of a criminal ground of inadmissibility.7 See INA 212(a)(2). A record of criminal arrests and/or convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents may constitute evidence of a health-related inadmissibility as a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is clearly an associated harmful behavior that poses a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others. Where a civil surgeon’s mental status evaluation diagnoses the presence of an alcohol use disorder (abuse or dependence), and where there is evidence of harmful behavior associated with the disorder, a Class A medical condition should be certified on Form I-693.

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(3) Security and related grounds …

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party

(i) In general

Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

(iii) Exception for past membership

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that—

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least—

(a) 2 years before the date of such application, or

(b) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and

(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(iv) Exception for close family members

The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(E) Participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing

(i) Participation in Nazi persecutions

Any alien who, during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with—

(I) the Nazi government of Germany,

(II) any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi government of Germany,

(III) any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany, or

(IV) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion is inadmissible.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(4) Public charge

(A) In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status [to become a legal permanent resident], is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B) Factors to be taken into account

(i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s—

(I) age;

(II) health;

(III) family status;

(IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and

(V) education and skills.

(ii) In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

“For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.”

[272] Proposed regulation: “Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, May 26, 1999. Pages 28676–8. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 28677:

Following extensive consultation with benefit-granting agencies, the Department is proposing to define “public charge” to mean an alien who has become (for deportation purposes) or who is likely to become (for admission or adjustment purposes) “primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense.” Institutionalization for short periods of rehabilitation does not constitute such primary dependence. This interpretation of “public charge” is reasonable because it is based on the plain meaning of the word “charge,” the historical context of public dependency when the public charge immigration provisions were first enacted more than a century ago, and the expertise of the benefit-granting agencies that deal with subsistence issues. It is also consistent with factual situations presented in the public charge case law.

When a word is not defined by statute and legislative history does not provide clear guidance, courts often construe it in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning as contained in the dictionary. (See, e.g., Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 898 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, 119 S. Ct. 790 (1999) (citations omitted).) The word “charge” has many meanings in the dictionary, but the one that can be applied unambiguously to a person and best clarifies the phrase “become a public charge” is “a person or thing committed or entrusted to the care, custody, management, or support of another.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 377 (1986). The dictionary gives the following apt sentence as an example of usage: “[H]e entered the poorhouse, becoming a county charge.” Id. (See also 3 Oxford English Dictionary 36 (2d ed. 1989) (definition #13 for “charge”—”The duty or responsibility of taking care of (a person or thing); care, custody, superintendence”).)

This language indicates that a person becomes a public charge when he or she is committed to the care, custody, management, or support of the public. The dictionary definition suggests a complete, or nearly complete, dependence on the Government rather than the mere receipt of some lesser level of financial support. Historically, individuals who became dependent on the Government were institutionalized in asylums or placed in “almshouses” for the poor long before the array of limited-purpose public benefits now available existed. This primary dependence model of public assistance was the backdrop against which the “public charge” concept in immigration law developed in the late 1800s. …

… The USDA, which administers Food Stamps, WIC, and other nutrition assistance programs, and SSA, which administers SSI and other programs, and other benefit-granting agencies have concurred with the HHS advice to the Service that receipt of cash assistance for income maintenance is the best evidence of primary dependence on the Government. …

Page 28678:

A person’s mere receipt of any of these forms of cash assistance for income maintenance, or being institutionalized for long-term care, does not necessarily make him or her inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status, or deportable on public charge grounds. As discussed in detail in the next part of this Supplementary Information section, the law requires that a variety of other factors and prerequisites must be considered as well. These additional requirements have been carefully described in both the admissibility and deportation sections of this proposed rule at §§ 212.104, 212.106, 212.108, 212.109, 237.11, 237.15, 237.16, and 237.18. Every public charge decision will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the proposed rule does not create any blanket requirements that individuals who receive public cash assistance or who are institutionalized for long-term care must be removed from the United States or denied admission or adjustment.

[273] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated September 3, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2017 at <www.uscis.gov>

“Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination.”

[274] In April of 2017, Just Facts wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ask if the interpretation above was still in effect. On May 16, 2017, Citizenship and Immigration Services replied that this is still “current policy.”

[275] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated September 3, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2017 at <www.uscis.gov>

Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:

• Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care

• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

• Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs

• Housing benefits

• Child care services

• Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

• Emergency disaster relief

• Foster care and adoption assistance

• Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education

“In an interview with The Daily Caller, USCIS spokesman Christopher Bentley explained that … Homeland Security does not keep data on how many people are rejected because they may become public charges. The agency also does not track whether or not individuals becomes public charges once they become U.S. residents.”

[277] In April of 2017, Just Facts wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ask if Christopher Bentley’s statements above were true and still applicable. On May 16, 2017, Citizenship and Immigration Services replied that it “still does not track the number of denials based on public charge and does not track whether or not individuals become a public charge after becoming a U.S. resident.”

“Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.”

[279] Proposed regulation: “Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, May 26, 1999. Pages 28676–8. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 28679:

Deportation

The provisions on deportation in the proposed rule incorporate the Attorney General’s decision in the leading case, Matter of B–, 3 I. & N. Dec. 323 (AG and BIA 1948), that the Service can prove public charge deportability only if there has been a failure to comply with a legally enforceable duty to reimburse the assistance agency for the costs of care. In addition, the benefit agency’s demand for repayment of the specific public benefit must have been made within the alien’s initial 5-year period after entry, unless it is shown that demand would have been futile because there was no one against whom payment could be enforced. Matter of L–, 6 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1954). Under the proposed definition for public charge previously discussed, only the failure to meet an agency’s demand for repayment of a cash benefit for income maintenance or for the costs of institutionalization for long-term care will be considered for deportation. If the alien can show that the causes for which he or she received one of these types of public cash benefits during his or her initial 5 years after entry arose after entry, he or she will not be deportable on public charge grounds. (See 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5).) The requirements and procedures concerning the demand for the repayment of a public benefit are governed by the specific program rules established by law and administered by the benefit granting agencies, or by State or local governments, not by the Service. This rule does not alter those existing procedures. The Service does not make determinations about which public benefits must be repaid. The Federal, State, and local benefit-granting agencies are responsible for those decisions. The Service may only initiate removal proceedings based on the public charge ground after the benefit agency has chosen to seek repayment, obtained a final judgment, taken all steps to collect on that judgment, and been unsuccessful.

[280] “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject.” 3rd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George Washington on January 29, 1795. <www.indiana.edu>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 introduced the long-standing GMC [good moral character] requirement for naturalization. Any conduct or act that offends the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted of an offense.

[282] “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject.” 3rd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George Washington on January 29, 1795. <www.indiana.edu>

SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --

First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act entitled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

[283] “An Act Supplementary to and to Amend the Act, Entitled ‘An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject’.” 5th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by John Adams on June 18, 1798. <library.uwb.edu>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless he … shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the United States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required…. And provided also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States.

“The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. … The Northern armies were victorious, and the rebellious states returned to the Union.”

[285] 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified December 6, 1865. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[286] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[287] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 1).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). Prologue (a publication of the National Archives and Records Administration), Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

The fourteenth amendment declared all persons born within the United States to be U.S. citizens and worked to bestow citizenship on freedmen. Congress went further by amending naturalization requirements in 1870 and extending naturalization eligibility to “aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”

[288] “An Act to Execute Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to Chinese.” 47th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. <www.ourdocuments.gov>

Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States. …

SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

[289] Webpage: “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed April 17, 2017 at <history.state.gov>

American objections to Chinese immigration took many forms, and generally stemmed from economic and cultural tensions, as well as ethnic discrimination. Most Chinese laborers who came to the United States did so in order to send money back to China to support their families there. At the same time, they also had to repay loans to the Chinese merchants who paid their passage to America. These financial pressures left them little choice but to work for whatever wages they could. Non-Chinese laborers often required much higher wages to support their wives and children in the United States, and also generally had a stronger political standing to bargain for higher wages. Therefore many of the non-Chinese workers in the United States came to resent the Chinese laborers, who might squeeze them out of their jobs. Furthermore, as with most immigrant communities, many Chinese settled in their own neighborhoods, and tales spread of Chinatowns as places where large numbers of Chinese men congregated to visit prostitutes, smoke opium, or gamble. Some advocates of anti-Chinese legislation therefore argued that admitting Chinese into the United States lowered the cultural and moral standards of American society. Others used a more overtly racist argument for limiting immigration from East Asia, and expressed concern about the integrity of American racial composition. …

… In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which, per the terms of the Angell Treaty, suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of 10 years. The Act also required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the country to carry a certificate identifying his or her status as a laborer, scholar, diplomat, or merchant. The 1882 Act was the first in American history to place broad restrictions on immigration. …

In 1888, Congress took exclusion even further and passed the Scott Act, which made reentry to the United States after a visit to China impossible, even for long-term legal residents. The Chinese Government considered this act a direct insult, but was unable to prevent its passage. In 1892, Congress voted to renew exclusion for ten years in the Geary Act, and in 1902, the prohibition was expanded to cover Hawaii and the Philippines, all over strong objections from the Chinese Government and people. Congress later extended the Exclusion Act indefinitely. …

The Chinese Exclusion Acts were not repealed until 1943, and then only in the interests of aiding the morale of a wartime ally during World War II.

[290] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 1).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). Prologue (a publication of the National Archives and Records Administration), Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

After extending naturalization to blacks (as Africans) in 1870, Congress banned the naturalization of Chinese in 1882. The Chinese Exclusion Act of that year, which is primarily an immigration law, included a section directing that “hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”4 The 1882 law clearly directed the courts not to naturalize any Chinese, but it did not explain whether “Chinese” indicated race or nationality.

[291] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 1).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). Prologue (a publication of the National Archives and Records Administration), Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

Because naturalization remained a judicial function, the courts were left to decide who was or was not a white person, or an alien of African nativity, or person of African descent.

In this question, as in all naturalization matters, the courts had little guidance. The delegation of naturalization authority to “any court of record” in 1790 led to a motley array of more than five thousand high and low courts exercising such jurisdiction by the turn of the twentieth century. Case law was their only guide, for there was no central or national authority to answer judges’ questions regarding the finer points of naturalization law or procedure. Methods adopted by late nineteenth-century courts to determine qualifications for citizenship varied widely. Just as courts in some localities interpreted the “good moral character” requirement differently, judges in different jurisdictions had differing ideas of what constituted “whiteness.” Many thousands of elected county judges across the nation simply relied on their “common understanding” of race, an understanding presumably shared by the local community.

It was the lack of uniformity among naturalization courts and procedure, and the fraud it bred, that underlay Congress’s establishment of the U.S. Naturalization Service by the Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 596). The law placed the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization in “charge of all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens,” with the general purpose of promoting uniform naturalization practices nationwide. While this seemed a clear mission, bureau officers would soon learn that influencing the courts—especially nonfederal courts—presented a persistent obstacle. Furthermore, inconsistencies within nationality law would prove difficult to reconcile. Among the most difficult was the issue of racial eligibility to citizenship.

In general, a naturalization applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. An applicant must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.1 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312.

B. Background

Prior to 1906, an applicant was not required to know English, history, civics, or understand the principles of the constitution to naturalize. If the court determined the applicant was a “thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man, of good moral character,” the applicant became a U.S. citizen.2 See In re Rodriguez, 81 F. 337 (W.D. Tex. 1897). As far back as 1908, the former Immigration Service and the Courts determined that a person could not establish the naturalization requirement of showing an attachment to the Constitution unless he or she had some understanding of its provisions.3 See In re Meakins, 164 F. 334 (E.D. Wash. 1908). See In re Vasicek, 271 F. 326 (E.D. Mo. 1921).

In 1940, Congress made amendments to include an English language requirement and certain exemptions based on age and residence, as well as a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution.4 See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137. In 1994, Congress enacted legislation providing an exception to the naturalization educational requirements for applicants who cannot meet the requirements because of a medical disability. Congress also amended the exceptions to the English requirement based on age and residence that are current today.5 See the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-416 (October 25, 1994).

On October 1, 2008, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] implemented a redesigned English and civics test. With this redesigned test, USCIS ensures that all applicants have the same testing experience and have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of English and civics.

C. Legal Authorities

• INA 312; 8 CFR 312 – Educational requirements for naturalization

• INA 316; 8 CFR 316 – General requirements for naturalization

[293] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 3).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). Prologue (a publication of the National Archives and Records Administration), Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

The INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] would not be free of racial considerations, of course, as long as nationality law contained racial requirements for naturalization and immigration law excluded those ineligible to naturalize. … In 1943 Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and made Chinese eligible for naturalization. And in 1946, Congress extended the same eligibility to Filipinos or persons of Filipino descent and “persons of races indigenous to India.”

Beginning in World War II, U.S. lawmakers began to dismantle the Asian exclusion regime in response to growing international pressure and scrutiny of America’s racial policies and practices. The Japanese government sought to use the U.S. Asian exclusion laws to disrupt the Sino-American alliance of World War II, causing Washington officials to recognize these laws as a growing impediment to international diplomacy and the war effort. Later, the Soviet Union and other communist powers cited U.S. exclusion policies as evidence of American racial hypocrisy during the Cold War.

A diverse group of actors championed the repeal of Asian exclusion laws over the 1940s and early 1950s. They included former American missionaries to Asia, U.S. and Asian state officials, and Asian and Asian American activists. The movement argued for repeal legislation as an inexpensive way for the United States to demonstrate goodwill, counter foreign criticism, and rehabilitate America’s international image as a liberal democracy. Drawing upon the timely language and logic of geopolitics, advocates lobbied Congressional lawmakers to pass legislation ending the racial exclusion of Asians from immigration and naturalization eligibility, in support of U.S. diplomatic and security interests abroad.

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230-166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199-192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[296] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[297] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[298] Webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1200: “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” U.S. House of Senate, 99th Congress (1985-1986). Accessed April 6, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

[299] Public Law 99-608: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.gpo.gov>

[300] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

[301] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The provisions of new INA section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.

New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if “likely to become [a] public charge [ ].” This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 provided a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship for several categories of unauthorized immigrants. The two primary groups1 were immigrants who had continuously and unlawfully resided within the U.S. since before January 1, 1982 (“pre-1982s”) and special agricultural workers (“SAWs”), who were required to have worked at least 90 days in agriculture during each of the years ending on May 1, 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Group 1) or solely during the year ending on May 1, 1986 (Group 2).

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Fact Sheet.

[303] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[305] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. …

… The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

[306] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “Because the measure was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem, a strict deadline for application was established: All applications for legalization were required within one year of May 5, 1987.”

Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.1 See INA 101(a)(23). There are various ways a foreign citizen or national may become a U.S. citizen through the process of naturalization. This chapter addresses the general naturalization requirements.2 See INA 316. See relevant parts in Volume 12 [12 USCIS-PM] for other naturalization provisions and requirements.

The applicant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets the requirements for naturalization.

The following are the general naturalization requirements that an applicant must meet in order to become a U.S. citizen …

The applicant must be an LPR [lawful permanent resident] for at least five years before being eligible for naturalization.

The applicant must have continuous residence in the United States as an LPR for at least five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application and up to the time of admission to citizenship.

The applicant must be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.

The applicant must have lived within the State or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence for at least three months prior to the date of filing.

USCIS conducts an investigation of the applicant upon his or her filing for naturalization. The investigation consists of certain criminal background and security checks.1 See INA 335. See 8 CFR 335.1. The background and security checks include collecting fingerprints and requesting a “name check” from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In addition, USCIS conducts other inter-agency criminal background and security checks on all applicants for naturalization. The background and security checks apply to most applicants and must be conducted and completed before the applicant is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview.2 See 8 CFR 335.2(b).

B. Fingerprints

1. Fingerprint Requirement

USCIS must collect fingerprint records as part of the background check process on most applicants for naturalization.3 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 8 CFR 335.1, and 8 CFR 335.2. See Part I, Military Members and their Families, Chapter 6, Required Background Checks [12 USCIS-PM I.6], for guidance on the background and security check procedures for members or veterans of the U.S. armed forces. Applicants 75 years of age and older are generally not required to submit fingerprints. USCIS notifies applicants in writing to appear for fingerprinting after submitting the naturalization application. Fingerprints are valid for 15 months from the date of processing by the FBI. An applicant abandons his or her naturalization application if the applicant fails to appear for the fingerprinting appointment without good cause and without notifying USCIS.4 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(ii). See Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination [12 USCIS-PM B.4].

Once an Application Support Center (ASC) collects an applicant’s biometrics, USCIS submits the records to the FBI for a full criminal background check.5 See 8 CFR 335.2(b). The response from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed includes confirmation that:

• The applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record;

• The applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or

• The applicant’s submitted fingerprint records have been determined “unclassifiable” for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected. …

FBI Name Checks

The FBI conducts “name checks” on all naturalization applicants, and disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests. The FBI’s National Name Check Program (NNCP) includes a search against the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI), which contains personnel, administrative, applicant, and criminal files compiled for law enforcement purposes. The FBI disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests.

The FBI name check must be completed and cleared before an applicant for naturalization is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview. A definitive FBI name check response of “NR” (No Record) or “PR” (Positive Response) is valid for the duration of the application for which they were conducted. Definitive responses used to support other applications are valid for 15 months from the FBI process date. A new name check is required in cases where the final adjudication and naturalization have not occurred within that timeframe or the name check was processed incorrectly.

An applicant who has been convicted of murder at any time is permanently barred from establishing GMC for naturalization.1 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1)(i).

B. Aggravated Felony

In 1996, Congress expanded the definition and type of offense considered an “aggravated felony” in the immigration context.2 See INA 101(a)(43). See the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (September 30, 1996). An applicant who has been convicted of an “aggravated felony” on or after November 29, 1990, is permanently barred from establishing GMC for naturalization.3 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1)(ii).

While an applicant who has been convicted of an aggravated felony prior to November 29, 1990, is not permanently barred from naturalization, the officer should consider the seriousness of the underlying offense (aggravated felony) along with the applicant’s present moral character in determining whether the applicant meets the GMC requirement. If the applicant’s actions during the statutory period do not reflect a reform of his or her character, then the applicant may not be able to establish GMC.4 See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).

Some offenses require a minimum term of imprisonment of one year to qualify as an aggravated felony in the immigration context. The term of imprisonment is the period of confinement ordered by the court regardless of whether the court suspended the sentence.5 See INA 101(a)(48)(B). See Matter of S-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 900 (BIA 1997). For example, an offense involving theft or a crime of violence is considered an aggravated felony if the term of imprisonment ordered by the court is one year or more, even if the court suspended the entire sentence.6 See INA 101(a)(43)(F) and INA 101(a)(43)(G).

The table below serves as a quick reference guide listing aggravated felonies in the immigration context. The officer should review the specific statutory language for further information.

“Aggravated Felonies” in the Immigration Context â€‹

Aggravated Felonyâ€‹

Citationâ€‹

Murder, Rape, or Sexual Abuse of a Minorâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(A)â€‹

Illicit Trafficking in Controlled Substanceâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(B)â€‹

Illicit Trafficking in Firearms or Destructive Devicesâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(C)â€‹

Money Laundering Offenses (over $10,000)â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(D)â€‹

Explosive Materials and Firearms Offensesâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(E)(i)–(iii)â€‹

Crime of Violence (imprisonment term of at least 1 â€‹yrâ€‹)â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(F)â€‹

Theft Offense (imprisonment term of at least 1 â€‹yrâ€‹)â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(G)â€‹

Demand for or Receipt of Ransomâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(H)â€‹

Child Pornography Offenseâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(I)â€‹

Racketeering, Gambling (imprisonment term of at least 1 â€‹yrâ€‹)â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(J)â€‹

Prostitution Offenses (managing, transporting, trafficking)â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(K)(i)–(iii)â€‹

Gathering or Transmitting Classified Information â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(L)(i)–(iii)â€‹

Fraud or Deceit Offenses or Tax Evasion (over $10,000)â€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), (ii)â€‹

Alien Smugglingâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(N)â€‹

Illegal Entry or Reentry by Removed Aggravated Felonâ€‹

INA 101(a)(43)(O)â€‹

Passport, Document Fraud (imprisonment term of at least 1 â€‹yrâ€‹)â€‹

In addition to the permanent bars to GMC [good moral character], the INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act] and corresponding regulations include bars to GMC that are not permanent in nature. USCIS refers to these bars as “conditional bars.” These bars are triggered by specific acts, offenses, activities, circumstances, or convictions within the statutory period for naturalization, including the period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.1 See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.10. An offense that does not fall within a permanent or conditional bar to GMC may nonetheless affect an applicant’s ability to establish GMC.2 See INA 101(f). See Chapter 1, Purpose and Background [12 USCIS-PM F.1].

With regard to bars to GMC requiring a conviction, the officer reviews the relevant federal or state law or regulation of the United States, or law or regulation of any foreign country to determine whether the applicant can establish GMC.

The table below serves as a quick reference guide on the general conditional bars to establishing GMC for acts occurring during the statutory period. The sections and paragraphs that follow the table provide further guidance on each bar and offense.

Conditional Bars to GMC for Acts Committed in Statutory Period

Conviction or admission of one or more CIMTs [crimes involving moral turpitude] (other than political offense), except for one petty offense…

Conviction of two or more offenses with combined sentence of five years or more (other than political offense) …

Violation of any law on controlled substances, except for simple possession of 30g or less of marijuana …

Incarceration for a total period of 180 days or more, except political offense and ensuing confinement abroad …

False testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit …

Engaged in prostitution, attempted or procured to import prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution …

Involved in smuggling of a person to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law …

Two or more gambling offenses or derives income principally from illegal gambling activities …

Unlawful act that adversely reflect upon GMC, unless extenuating circumstances are established …

A. One or More Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

1. Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT)

“Crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) is a term used in the immigration context that has no statutory definition. Extensive case law, however, has provided sufficient guidance on whether an offense rises to the level of a CIMT. The courts have held that moral turpitude “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.”3 See Medina v. United States, 259 F.3d 220, 227 (4th Cir. 2001) quoting Matter of Danesh, 19 I&N Dec. 669, 670 (BIA 1988). See Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I&N Dec. 615, 618 (BIA 1992). See Matter of Flores, 17 I&N Dec. 225 (BIA 1980) (and cases cited therein).

Whether an offense is a CIMT is largely based on whether the offense involves willful conduct that is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, the essence of which is a reckless, evil or malicious intent. The Attorney General has decreed that a finding of “moral turpitude” requires that the perpetrator committed a reprehensible act with some form of guilty knowledge.4 See Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687, 688, 706 (A.G. 2008).

The officer should consider the nature of the offense in determining whether it is a CIMT.5 See Matter of Esfandiary, 16 I&N Dec. 659 (BIA 1979). In many cases, the CIMT determination depends on whether the relevant state statute includes one of the elements that involves moral turpitude. For example, an offense or crime may be a CIMT in one state, but a similarly named crime in another state may not be a CIMT because of differences in the definition of the crime or offense. The officer may rely on local USCIS counsel in cases where there is a question about whether a particular offense is a CIMT.

The table below serves as a quick reference guide on the general categories of CIMTs and their respective elements or determining factors. The paragraphs that follow the table provide further guidance on each category.

General Categories of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs)

Criminal intent or recklessness, or is defined as morally reprehensible by state (may include statutory rape) …

Involving fraud against the government or an individual (may include theft, forgery, robbery) …

Sexual and family crimes … No one set of principles or elements; see further explanation below (may include spousal or child abuse) …

Crimes against authority of the Government … Presence of fraud is the main determining factor (may include offering a bribe, counterfeiting) …

Crimes against a person involve moral turpitude when the offense contains criminal intent or recklessness or when the crime is defined as morally reprehensible by state statute. Criminal intent or recklessness may be inferred from the presence of unjustified violence or the use of a dangerous weapon. For example, aggravated battery is usually, if not always, a CIMT. Simple assault and battery is not usually considered a CIMT. …

Moral turpitude attaches to any crime against property which involves fraud, whether it entails fraud against the government or against an individual. Certain crimes against property may require guilty knowledge or intent to permanently take property. Petty theft, grand theft, forgery, and robbery are CIMTs in some states. …

Sexual and Family Crimes … It is difficult to discern a distinguishing set of principles that the courts apply to determine whether a particular offense involving sexual and family crimes is a CIMT. In some cases, the presence or absence of violence seems to be an important factor. The presence or absence of criminal intent may also be a determining factor. The CIMT determination depends upon state statutes and the controlling case law and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Offenses such as spousal or child abuse may rise to the level of a CIMT, while an offense involving a domestic simple assault generally does not. An offense relating to indecent exposure or abandonment of a minor child may or may not rise to the level of a CIMT. In general, if the person knew or should have known that the victim was a minor, any intentional sexual contact with a child involves moral turpitude.6 See Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (AG 2008).

Crimes Against the Authority of the Government … The presence of fraud primarily determines the presence of moral turpitude in crimes against the authority of the government. Offering a bribe to a government official and offenses relating to counterfeiting are generally CIMTs. Offenses relating to possession of counterfeit securities without intent and contempt of court, however, are not generally CIMTs.

2. Committing One or More CIMTs in Statutory Period

An applicant who is convicted of or admits to committing one or more CIMTs during the statutory period cannot establish GMC for naturalization.7 See INA 101(f)(3). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(i). If the applicant has only been convicted of (or admits to) one CIMT, the CIMT must have been committed within the statutory period as well. In cases of multiple CIMTs, only the commission and conviction (or admission) of one CIMT needs to be within the statutory period.

Petty Offense Exception

An applicant who has committed only one CIMT that is a considered a “petty offense,” such as petty theft, may be eligible for an exception if all of the following conditions are met:

• The “petty offense” is the only CIMT the applicant has ever committed;

• The sentence imposed for the offense was six months or less; and

• The maximum possible sentence for the offense does not exceed one year.8 See INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(ll).

The petty offense exception does not apply to an applicant who has been convicted of or who admits to committing more than one CIMT even if only one of the CIMTs was committed during the statutory period. An applicant who has committed more than one petty offense of which only one is a CIMT may be eligible for the petty offense exception.9 See Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I&N Dec. 590, 594-95 (BIA 2003).

Purely Political Offense Exception

This bar to GMC does not apply to a conviction for a CIMT occurring outside of the United States for a purely political offense committed abroad.10 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section F, “Purely Political Offense” Exception [12 USCIS-PM F.2(F)].

B. Aggregate Sentence of Five Years or More

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has been convicted of two or more offenses during the statutory period for which the combined, imposed sentence was five years or more.11 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(ii). The underlying offenses must have been committed within the statutory period.

Purely Political Offense Exception

The GMC bar for having two or more convictions does not apply if the convictions and resulting sentence or imprisonment of five years or more occurred outside of the United States for purely political offenses committed abroad.12 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section F, “Purely Political Offense” Exception [12 USCIS-PM F.2(F)].

C. Controlled Substance Violation

An applicant cannot establish GMC if he or she has been convicted of or admits to having violated any controlled substance-related federal or state law or regulation of the United States or law or regulation of any foreign country during the statutory period.13 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii) and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iv). See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section E, Admission of Certain Criminal Acts [12 USCIS-PM F.2(E)]. This bar to establishing GMC also applies to an admission to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any controlled substance violation.

Exception for Single Offense of Simple Possession

The conditional bar to GMC for a controlled substance violation does not apply if the violation was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.14 See INA 101(f)(3). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii). While an offense for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana is excluded from INA 101(f)(3), it may nonetheless affect GMC under the residual clause of the GMC definition. See INA 101(f). See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).

D. Imprisonment for 180 Days or More

An applicant cannot establish GMC if he or she is or was imprisoned for an aggregate period of 180 days or more during the statutory period based on a conviction.15 See INA 101(f)(7). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(v). This bar to GMC does not apply if the conviction resulted only in a sentence to a period of probation with no sentence of incarceration for 180 days or more. This bar applies regardless of the reason for the conviction. For example, this bar still applies if the term of imprisonment results from a violation of probation rather than from the original sentence.16 See Matter of Piroglu, 17 I&N Dec. 578 (BIA 1980).

The commission of the offense resulting in conviction and confinement does not need to have occurred during the statutory period for this bar to apply. Only the confinement needs to be within the statutory period for the applicant to be precluded from establishing GMC.

Purely Political Offense Exception

This bar to GMC does not apply to a conviction and resulting confinement of 180 days or more occurring outside of the United States for a purely political offense committed abroad.17 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section F, “Purely Political Offense” Exception [12 USCIS-PM F.2(F)]. …

F. Prostitution

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has engaged in prostitution, procured or attempted to procure or to import prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution during the statutory period.24 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vii). The BIA has held that to “engage in” prostitution, one must have engaged in a regular pattern of behavior or conduct.25 See Matter of T, 6 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 1955). The BIA has also determined that a single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf is not the same as procurement.26 See Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008).

G. Smuggling of a Person

An applicant is prohibited from establishing GMC if he or she is or was involved in the smuggling of a person or persons by encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting or aiding any alien to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law during the statutory period.27 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(6)(E). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(viii).

Family Reunification Exception

This bar to GMC does not apply in certain cases where the applicant was involved in the smuggling of his or her spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law before May 5, 1988.28 See INA 212(a)(6)(E)(ii). See Sec. 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90), Pub. L. 101-649 (November 29, 1990). …

I. Gambling

An applicant who has been convicted of committing two or more gambling offenses or who derives his or her income principally from illegal gambling activities during the statutory period is precluded from establishing GMC.31 See INA 101(f)(5). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(x) and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(xi). The gambling offenses must have been committed within the statutory period. …

M. Unlawful Acts

An applicant who has committed, was convicted, or imprisoned for an unlawful act or acts during the GMC period may be found to lack GMC.48 See INA 101(f). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii). This provision may apply to cases where an offense is not specifically listed in the other relevant GMC provisions but rises to the level of preventing the applicant from establishing GMC.49 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1) and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2) (Other relevant GMC regulations). This provision does not require the applicant to have been charged or convicted of the offense.

An “unlawful act” includes any act that is against the law, illegal or against moral or ethical standards of the community. The fact that an act is a crime makes any commission thereof an unlawful act.50 See U.S. v. Lekarczyk, 354 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Wis. 2005). See Jean-Baptiste v. United States, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.2005). Collateral estoppel bars a defendant who is convicted in a criminal trial from contesting this conviction in a subsequent civil action with respect to issues necessarily decided in the criminal trial. See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 157 (1963).

Considering Extenuating Circumstances for Unlawful Acts

If the applicant shows extenuating circumstances, the commission of an unlawful act51 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii). or acts should not adversely affect the GMC determination.52 See INA 101(f). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii). See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section G, Extenuating Circumstances [12 USCIS-PM F.2(G)]. An extenuating circumstance must pertain to the unlawful act and must precede or be contemporaneous with the commission of the unlawful act.53 See Jean-Baptiste v. United States, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.2005) citing Rico v. INS, 262 F. Supp.2d 6 (E.D.N.Y.2003).

An officer may not consider conduct or equities (including evidence of reformation or rehabilitation) subsequent to the commission of the unlawful act as an extenuating circumstance. Consequences after the fact and future hardship are not considered extenuating circumstances.54 See Jean-Baptiste v. United States, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.2005). If a jury or a court acquitted the applicant, he or she has not committed an unlawful act.

The factors considered in the determination are included in the denial notices in cases that result in an unfavorable determination.

In most cases, the officer conducting the naturalization interview administers the required tests relating to the applicant’s ability to read and write English, and his or her knowledge of U.S. history and government (civics), unless the applicant is exempt.3 See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

In general, applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. Applicants must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.

An applicant may be eligible for an exception to the English requirements if he or she is a certain age and has been an LPR [legal permanent resident] for a certain period of time. In addition, an applicant who has a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment may be eligible for a medical exception of both the English and civics requirements.2 See INA 312 and 8 CFR 312. See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

In general, a naturalization applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. An applicant must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.1 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312.

B. Background

Prior to 1906, an applicant was not required to know English, history, civics, or understand the principles of the constitution to naturalize. If the court determined the applicant was a “thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man, of good moral character,” the applicant became a U.S. citizen.2 See In re Rodriguez, 81 F. 337 (W.D. Tex. 1897). As far back as 1908, the former Immigration Service and the Courts determined that a person could not establish the naturalization requirement of showing an attachment to the Constitution unless he or she had some understanding of its provisions.3 See In re Meakins, 164 F. 334 (E.D. Wash. 1908). See In re Vasicek, 271 F. 326 (E.D. Mo. 1921).

In 1940, Congress made amendments to include an English language requirement and certain exemptions based on age and residence, as well as a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution.4 See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137. In 1994, Congress enacted legislation providing an exception to the naturalization educational requirements for applicants who cannot meet the requirements because of a medical disability. Congress also amended the exceptions to the English requirement based on age and residence that are current today.5 See the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-416 (October 25, 1994).

On October 1, 2008, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] implemented a redesigned English and civics test. With this redesigned test, USCIS ensures that all applicants have the same testing experience and have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of English and civics.

An officer administers a naturalization test to determine whether an applicant meets the English and civics requirements.

The naturalization test consists of two components:

• English language proficiency, which is determined by the applicant’s ability to read, write, speak and understand English; and

• Knowledge of U.S. history and government, which is determined by a civics test.

An applicant has two opportunities to pass the English and civics tests: the initial examination and the re-examination interview. USCIS will deny the naturalization application if the applicant fails to pass any portion of the tests after two attempts. In cases where an applicant requests a USCIS hearing on the denial, officers must administer any failed portion of the tests.1 Only one opportunity to pass the failed portion of the tests is provided at the hearing. See Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chapter 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review, Section B, Review of Timely Filed Hearing Request [12 USCIS-PM B.6(B)].

Unless excused by USCIS, the applicant’s failure to appear at the re-examination for testing or to take the tests at an examination or hearing counts as a failed attempt to pass the test.

B. Exceptions …

1. Age and Residency Exceptions to English

An applicant is exempt from the English language requirement but is still required to meet the civics requirement if:

• The applicant is age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR in the United States for at least 20 years; or

• The applicant is age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR in the United States for at least 15 years.

The applicant may take the civics test in his or her language of choice with the use of an interpreter. …

3. Medical Disability Exception to English and Civics

An applicant who cannot meet the English and civics requirements because of a medical disability may be exempt from the English requirement, the civics requirement, or both requirements. …

D. English Portion of the Test

A naturalization applicant must only demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage.5 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312. Ordinary usage means comprehensible and pertinent communication through simple vocabulary and grammar, which may include noticeable errors in pronouncing, constructing, spelling, and understanding completely certain words, phrases, and sentences.

An applicant may ask for words to be repeated or rephrased and may make some errors in pronunciation, spelling, and grammar and still meet the English requirement for naturalization. An officer should repeat and rephrase questions until the officer is satisfied that the applicant either fully understands the question or is unable to understand English.6 See 8 CFR 335.2(c).

1. Speaking Test

An officer determines an applicant’s ability to speak and understand English based on the applicant’s ability to respond to questions normally asked in the course of the naturalization examination. The officer’s questions relate to eligibility and include questions provided in the naturalization application.7 See 8 CFR 312.1(c)(1). The officer should repeat and rephrase questions during the naturalization examination until the officer is satisfied that the applicant either understands the questions or does not understand English.

An applicant who does not qualify for a waiver of the English requirement must be able to communicate in English about his or her application and eligibility for naturalization. An applicant does not need to understand every word or phrase on the application.

Passing the Speaking Test

If the applicant generally understands and responds meaningfully to questions relevant to his or her naturalization eligibility, then he or she has sufficiently demonstrated the ability to speak English.

Failing the Speaking Test

An applicant fails the speaking test when he or she does not understand sufficient English to be placed under oath or to answer the eligibility questions on his or her naturalization application. The officer must still administer all other parts of the naturalization test, including the portions on reading, writing, and civics.

An officer cannot offer or accept a withdrawal of a naturalization application from an applicant who does not speak English unless the applicant has an interpreter present who is able to clearly understand the consequences of withdrawing the application.8 See Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination, Section D, Administrative Closure, Lack of Prosecution, Withdrawal, and Holding in Abeyance [12 USCIS-PM B.4(D)].

2. Reading Test

To sufficiently demonstrate the ability to read in English, applicants must read one sentence out of three sentences. The reading test is administered by the officer using standardized reading test forms. Once the applicant reads one of the three sentences correctly, the officer stops the reading test.

Passing the Reading Test

An applicant passes the reading test if the applicant reads one of the three sentences without extended pauses in a manner that the applicant is able to convey the meaning of the sentence and the officer is able to understand the sentence. In general, the applicant must read all content words but may omit short words or make pronunciation or intonation errors that do not interfere with the meaning.

Failing the Reading Test

An applicant fails the reading test if he or she does not successfully read at least one of the three sentences. An applicant fails to read a sentence successfully when he or she:

• Omits a content word or substitutes another word for a content word;

• Pauses for extended periods of time while reading the sentence; or

• Makes pronunciation or intonation errors to the extent that the applicant is not able to convey the meaning of the sentence and the officer is not able to understand the sentence.

3. Writing Test

To sufficiently demonstrate the ability to write in English, the applicant must write one sentence out of three sentences in a manner that the officer understands. The officer dictates the sentence to the applicant using standardized writing test forms. An applicant must not abbreviate any of the words. Once the applicant writes one of the three sentences in a manner that the officer understands, the officer stops the writing test.

An applicant does not fail the writing test because of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors, unless the errors interfere with the meaning of the sentence and the officer is unable to understand the sentence.

Passing the Writing Test

The applicant passes the writing test if the applicant is able to convey the meaning of one of the three sentences to the officer. The applicant’s writing sample may have the following:

• Some grammatical, spelling, or capitalization errors;

• Omitted short words that do not interfere with meaning or

• Numbers spelled out or written as digits.

Failing the Writing Test

An applicant fails the writing test if he or she makes errors to a degree that the applicant does not convey the meaning of the sentence and the officer is not able to understand the sentence.

An applicant fails the writing test if he or she writes the following:

• A different sentence or words;

• An abbreviation for a dictated word;9 An abbreviation for a dictated word may be accepted if the officer has approved the abbreviation.

• Nothing or only one or two isolated words; or

• A sentence that is completely illegible. …

F. Failure to Meet the English or Civics Requirements

If an applicant fails any portion of the English test, the civics test, or all tests during the initial naturalization examination, USCIS will reschedule the applicant to appear for a second examination between 60 and 90 days after the initial examination.14 See 8 CFR 335.3(b) (Re-exam no earlier than 60 days from initial examination). See 8 CFR 312.5(a) (Re-examination no later than 90 days from initial examination).

In cases where the applicant appears for a re-examination, the reexamining officer must not administer the same English or civics test forms administered during the initial examination. The officer must only retest the applicant in those areas that the applicant previously failed. For example, if the applicant passed the English speaking, reading, and civics portions but failed the writing portion during the initial examination, the officer must only administer the English writing test during the re-examination.15 See 8 CFR 312.5.

If an applicant fails any portion of the naturalization test a second time, the officer must deny the application based upon the applicant’s failure to meet the educational requirements for naturalization. The officer also must address any other areas of ineligibility in the denial notice. An applicant who refuses to be tested or to respond to individual questions on the reading, writing, or civics test, or fails to respond to eligibility questions because he or she did not understand the questions as asked or rephrased, fails to meet to the educational requirements. An officer should treat an applicant’s refusal to be tested or to respond to test questions as a failure of the test.16 See 8 CFR 312.5(b).

G. Documenting Test Results

All officers administering the English and civics tests are required to record the test results in the applicant’s A-file. Officers are required to complete and provide to each applicant at the end of the naturalization examination the results of the examination and testing, unless the officer serves the applicant with a denial notice at that time.17 Officers must use Form N-652, Naturalization Interview Results. The results include the results of the English and civics tests.

In most cases, the officer conducting the naturalization interview administers the required tests relating to the applicant’s ability to read and write English, and his or her knowledge of U.S. history and government (civics), unless the applicant is exempt.3 See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

In general, applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. Applicants must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.

An applicant may be eligible for an exception to the English requirements if he or she is a certain age and has been an LPR [legal permanent resident] for a certain period of time. In addition, an applicant who has a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment may be eligible for a medical exception of both the English and civics requirements.2 See INA 312 and 8 CFR 312. See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

In general, a naturalization applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. An applicant must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.1 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312.

B. Background

Prior to 1906, an applicant was not required to know English, history, civics, or understand the principles of the constitution to naturalize. If the court determined the applicant was a “thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man, of good moral character,” the applicant became a U.S. citizen.2 See In re Rodriguez, 81 F. 337 (W.D. Tex. 1897). As far back as 1908, the former Immigration Service and the Courts determined that a person could not establish the naturalization requirement of showing an attachment to the Constitution unless he or she had some understanding of its provisions.3 See In re Meakins, 164 F. 334 (E.D. Wash. 1908). See In re Vasicek, 271 F. 326 (E.D. Mo. 1921).

In 1940, Congress made amendments to include an English language requirement and certain exemptions based on age and residence, as well as a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution.4 See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137. In 1994, Congress enacted legislation providing an exception to the naturalization educational requirements for applicants who cannot meet the requirements because of a medical disability. Congress also amended the exceptions to the English requirement based on age and residence that are current today.5 See the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-416 (October 25, 1994).

On October 1, 2008, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] implemented a redesigned English and civics test. With this redesigned test, USCIS ensures that all applicants have the same testing experience and have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of English and civics.

An officer administers a naturalization test to determine whether an applicant meets the English and civics requirements.

The naturalization test consists of two components:

• English language proficiency, which is determined by the applicant’s ability to read, write, speak and understand English; and

• Knowledge of U.S. history and government, which is determined by a civics test.

An applicant has two opportunities to pass the English and civics tests: the initial examination and the re-examination interview. USCIS will deny the naturalization application if the applicant fails to pass any portion of the tests after two attempts. In cases where an applicant requests a USCIS hearing on the denial, officers must administer any failed portion of the tests.1 Only one opportunity to pass the failed portion of the tests is provided at the hearing. See Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chapter 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review, Section B, Review of Timely Filed Hearing Request [12 USCIS-PM B.6(B)].

Unless excused by USCIS, the applicant’s failure to appear at the re-examination for testing or to take the tests at an examination or hearing counts as a failed attempt to pass the test.

B. Exceptions …

2. Special Consideration for Civics Test

An applicant receives special consideration in the civics test if, at the time of filing the application, the applicant is 65 years of age or older and has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence.2 See INA 312(b)(3). An applicant who qualifies for special consideration is administered specific test forms.

3. Medical Disability Exception to English and Civics

An applicant who cannot meet the English and civics requirements because of a medical disability may be exempt from the English requirement, the civics requirement, or both requirements. …

E. Civics Portion of the Test

A naturalization applicant must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, the principles, and the form of government of the United States (civics).10 See 8 CFR 312.2.

1. Civics Test

To sufficiently demonstrate knowledge of civics, the applicant must answer correctly at least six of ten questions from the standardized civics test form administered by an officer. The officer administers the test orally.11 See 8 CFR 312.2(c)(1). Once the applicant answers six of the ten questions correctly, the officer stops the test.

Passing the Civics Test

An applicant passes the civics test if he or she provides a correct answer or provides an alternative phrasing of the correct answer for six of the ten questions.

Failing the Civics Test

An applicant fails the civics test if he or she provides an incorrect answer or fails to respond to six out of the ten questions from the standardized test form.

2. Special Consideration

An officer gives special consideration to an applicant who is 65 years of age or older and who has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence.12 See INA 312(b)(3). The age and time requirements must be met at the time of filing the naturalization application. An officer only asks questions from the three “65/20” test forms when administering the civics test to such applicants. The test forms only contain 20 specially designated civics questions from the usual list of 100 questions.

3. Due Consideration

An officer should exercise “due consideration” on a case-by-case basis in choosing subject matters, phrasing questions, and evaluating responses when administering the civics test. The officer’s decision to exercise due consideration should be based on a review of the applicant’s:

• Age;

• Background;

• Level of education;

• Length of residence in the United States;

• Opportunities available and efforts made to acquire the requisite knowledge; and

• Any other relevant factors relating to the applicant’s knowledge and understanding.13 See 8 CFR 312.2(c)(2).

F. Failure to Meet the English or Civics Requirements

If an applicant fails any portion of the English test, the civics test, or all tests during the initial naturalization examination, USCIS will reschedule the applicant to appear for a second examination between 60 and 90 days after the initial examination.14 See 8 CFR 335.3(b) (Re-exam no earlier than 60 days from initial examination). See 8 CFR 312.5(a) (Re-examination no later than 90 days from initial examination).

In cases where the applicant appears for a re-examination, the reexamining officer must not administer the same English or civics test forms administered during the initial examination. The officer must only retest the applicant in those areas that the applicant previously failed. For example, if the applicant passed the English speaking, reading, and civics portions but failed the writing portion during the initial examination, the officer must only administer the English writing test during the re-examination.15 See 8 CFR 312.5.

If an applicant fails any portion of the naturalization test a second time, the officer must deny the application based upon the applicant’s failure to meet the educational requirements for naturalization. The officer also must address any other areas of ineligibility in the denial notice. An applicant who refuses to be tested or to respond to individual questions on the reading, writing, or civics test, or fails to respond to eligibility questions because he or she did not understand the questions as asked or rephrased, fails to meet to the educational requirements. An officer should treat an applicant’s refusal to be tested or to respond to test questions as a failure of the test.16 See 8 CFR 312.5(b).

G. Documenting Test Results

All officers administering the English and civics tests are required to record the test results in the applicant’s A-file. Officers are required to complete and provide to each applicant at the end of the naturalization examination the results of the examination and testing, unless the officer serves the applicant with a denial notice at that time.17 Officers must use Form N-652, Naturalization Interview Results. The results include the results of the English and civics tests.

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] officers have authority to conduct the investigation and examination, to include the naturalization interview.1 See INA 335(b). See 8 CFR 335.2. The officer should introduce him or herself and explain the purpose of the naturalization examination and place the applicant under oath at the start of the interview.

USCIS’s authority includes the legal authority for officers to:

• Place an applicant under oath;

• Obtain oral and written testimony during an in-person interview;

• Subpoena witnesses;

• Request evidence; and

• Administer the Oath of Allegiance (when delegated by the Field Office Director).

Questions on Eligibility

An officer’s questioning of an applicant during the applicant’s naturalization interview must cover all of the requirements for naturalization.2 See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements [12 USCIS-PM D]. In general, the officer’s questions focus on the information in the naturalization application. The officer may ask any questions that are pertinent to the eligibility determination. The officer should provide the applicant with suitable opportunities to respond to questions in all instances.

In general, the officer’s questions may include, but are not limited to, the following questions:

• Biographical information, to include marital history and military service;

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] has 120 days from the date of the initial naturalization interview to issue a decision. If the decision is not issued within 120 days of the interview, an applicant may request judicial review of his or her application in district court. The officer must base his or her decision on the laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and governing policies.

The officer may:

• Approve the application;

• Continue the examination without making a decision (if more information is needed), if the applicant needs to be rescheduled, or for other relevant reasons; or

• Deny the application.

The officer must provide the applicant with a notice of results at the end of the interview regardless of the outcome. The notice should address the outcome of the interview and the next steps involved for continued cases.1 The officer issues a Notice of Examination Results (Form N-652). …

General Grounds for Denial of Naturalization Application (Form N-400)â€‹

One of the requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC). An applicant for naturalization must show that he or she has been, and continues to be, a person of good moral character. In general, the applicant must show GMC during the five-year period immediately preceding his or her application for naturalization and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance. Conduct prior to the five-year period may also impact whether the applicant meets the requirement.2 See Part F, Good Moral Character [12 USCIS-PM F].

One of the general requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC). GMC means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides.1 See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). See INA 101(f). See In re Mogus, 73 F. Supp. 150 (W.D. Pa. 1947) (Moral standard of average citizen). In general, an applicant must show that he or she has been and continues to be a person of GMC during the statutory period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.2 See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(1).

The applicable naturalization provision under which the applicant files determines the period during which the applicant must demonstrate GMC.3 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section A, Applicable Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.2(A)]. The applicant’s conduct outside the GMC period may also impact whether he or she meets the GMC requirement.4 See INA 316(e). See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).

While USCIS determines whether an applicant has met the GMC requirement on a case-by-case basis, certain types of criminal conduct automatically preclude applicants from establishing GMC and may make the applicant subject to removal proceedings.5 See INA 101(f). An applicant may also be found to lack GMC for other types of criminal conduct (or unlawful acts).

An officer’s assessment of whether an applicant meets the GMC requirement includes an officer’s review of:

• The applicant’s record;

• Statements provided in the naturalization application; and

• Oral testimony provided during the interview.

There may be cases that are affected by specific jurisdictional case law. The officer should rely on local USCIS counsel in cases where there is a question about whether a particular offense rises to the level of precluding an applicant from establishing GMC. In addition, the offenses and conduct which affect the GMC determination may also render an applicant removable.

B. Background

The Naturalization Act of 1790 introduced the long-standing GMC requirement for naturalization. Any conduct or act that offends the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted of an offense.

In general, an applicant for naturalization must establish GMC throughout the requisite periods of continuous residence in the United States. In prescribing specific periods during which GMC must be established, Congress generally intended to make provision for the reformation and eventual naturalization of persons who were guilty of certain past misconduct.

The applicable period during which an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of GMC depends on the corresponding naturalization provision.1 See the relevant Volume 12 part for the specific statutory period pertaining to each naturalization provision. In general, the statutory period for GMC for an applicant filing under the general naturalization provision starts five years prior to the date of filing.2 See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements, Chapter 1, Purpose and Background, Section B, General Eligibility Requirements [12 USCIS-PM D.1(B)]. See INA